Wednesday 17th December 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-VII(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (17 Dec 2025)
Lord Shinkwin
“Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling: review(1) Within one year of the day on which section 106 comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 106.(2) The review under subsection (1) must recommend any changes to the law which may be necessary.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies who contract the services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists on the road.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 346C, I welcome the other amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl of Dulwich.
Amendment 346C is a modest and reasonable amendment, which would do exactly what it says on the tin. It would require the Home Secretary to institute
“a review assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 106”.
The review, which must be published within a year of that section coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law which the review determines may be necessary. The rationale for this amendment is similarly simple: it seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies which contract for the services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct of those cyclists on the road.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I approach this issue from the perspective of a severely disabled person, whose condition makes me extremely vulnerable to the impact—and I use the term advisedly to mean the actual physical impact—of being hit by an individual riding one of these e-bikes in, to use the legislative terminology, a “dangerous, careless or inconsiderate” way. To put it bluntly, the impact would be catastrophic; I would not expect to survive. So I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who said on day six of Committee that you take your life in your hands when you cross some roads in central London. I do so, quite literally, every day, on my way to and from your Lordships’ House.
Now I entirely appreciate that whether I live or die is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. It would be a shame if I were killed, but the earth would continue to turn. I know that. Equally, I know that I am just one person. I think of all those people with visual impairments, for example, who literally risk life and limb just stepping outside their front door. So the review should consider the impact on them as well, and not just in terms of their independence, mental health and well-being, all of which will of course bring associated costs for the NHS and social care services, but of their employment prospects. For why would anyone want to risk going to work, given they could end up in hospital before they have even got to the office as a result of being hit by a courier cyclist on an e-bike while they were walking along the pavement or trying to board a bus from one of those so-called floating bus stops?
I cite this group as just one example—and of course there are people with mobility impairments like mine, or simply older people whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were—to highlight how the dangers presented by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling on e-bikes, particularly by courier and delivery cyclists, are having a far greater impact on our society than we perhaps realise. I would go so far as to say that the effect has been to airbrush out of the bigger social picture whole swathes of society. So while I am not suggesting that an assessment of impact should be disability-exclusive, I would argue that such an impact alone merits a review.
I say to the Minister that I am not laying the blame at the door of Government per se. The Member’s explanatory statement accompanying the amendment refers to the companies which contract the services of delivery cyclists bearing
“some responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists”—
the point being that the responsibility is shared. But none of us, either in Parliament or the Government, can deny that we also share responsibility for addressing the problem; in our case, by providing the most effective legislative framework to facilitate the change we all want to see—safer streets.
I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said on day six in Committee, about us having made a “huge strategic mistake” by not factoring in the need for safety from the outset when these e-bikes were introduced. I agree with him. Sadly, some people, especially those in the Department for Transport, appear not to. They—and I dare say they are non-disabled and a bit slow on the uptake, bless them, so we need to make allowances—still do not seem to have woken up to the fact that this experiment has gone badly wrong.
That needs to be the starting point of the review. There must be a recognition—a fact which I sense the Minister implicitly acknowledges—that there is a significant and growing problem, which cannot simply be dismissed by officialdom’s obtuse obfuscation of, “Well, we are where we are”, because if we do not recognise that where we are is bad then we cannot move on.
Lime, the other e-bike hiring companies and companies such as Just Eat deserve to be in the dock and not in the saddle when it comes to this review. Yes, they will be part of the solution, but right now they are doing very nicely thank you very much from being a big part of the problem. They cannot be allowed to set or influence the review’s terms of reference or to sit on the review panel. That should be done by those most affected by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, not by those whose irresponsible indifference means they are profiting from putting people’s lives at risk.
In conclusion, I believe that the case for a review is compelling. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said on day six in Committee, courier delivery service e-bike users are “the worst perpetrators”. It is time we reviewed the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 416K supports a targeted, enforceable measure that holds delivery platforms to account where their operational model and oversight failures contribute to dangerous cycling on our streets. This is not about blame for individual riders alone; it is about closing a regulatory gap so that companies that profit from rapid, app-driven deliveries also carry responsibility for foreseeable harms linked to their business models and practices.
If noble Lords want a bit more excitement in their lives than the excitement of participating in this debate then I invite them to accompany me, when we rise tonight, to walk along Millbank, Horseferry Road and Marsham Street, past the Home Office. The excitement will come from them dodging out of the way of dozens of Deliveroo couriers belting along the pavements delivering to the thousands of flats in this area.
Even more excitement may come when I manage to confront one of these riders and we have an exchange of views, but not usually a meeting of minds. When I see them belting along the pavement, I drive straight for them. My chair is heavier than theirs, so they are the ones who are forced to dodge out of the way. When I manage to stop one on those massive, fat tyre, illegal bikes and speak to them, I can say with all honesty that every single one I have seen is a recent arrival to this country. Half do not speak English and do not know the law on riding killer bikes on the pavement. The other half do know and tell me to go away sexually, that they will do what they like, and who will stop them.
If I had said that a month ago, I might have been accused of racist comments, but on 4 December this year, the Home Office issued a press release to say that, in targeted action, it and the police had arrested 171 food delivery couriers for criminal activity, and 60 of them were illegal migrants facing deportation. The Home Office press release said:
“It comes as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been targeting people working unlawfully in the ‘gig economy’. Border Security Minister Alex Norris has also met representatives from food-delivery firms to encourage them to do more to tackle the issue—such as using facial recognition checks to prevent riders sharing their identities with people who do not have permission to take up work in the UK. Norris said that November’s action ought to ‘send a clear message: if you are working illegally in this country, you will be arrested and removed’. He added: ‘We are tightening the law to clamp down on illegal working in the delivery sector to root out this criminality from our communities’”.
Good on you, Minister, and good on the Home Office—they have provided proof of what I have encountered every night for the past two years on the streets of Westminster, within hundreds of yards of this building. Good luck to you in trying to send them back to Eritrea, Somalia or wherever, because there is bound to be some immigration judge who will block you and cite bogus human rights reasons for why they cannot be deported. But that is your problem and not for today.
My amendment supplements what Minister Norris was doing. He exhorted the food delivery companies to do more to tackle the issue. My proposed new clause would give the police the power to penalise the food delivery companies financially, since money is the only thing that will make them change.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 481 seeks to address the specific part that delivery services play in broader criminal activity. Delivery riders make regular deliveries to residential accommodation, which often houses vulnerable people. The identity of these riders is unknown, because they wear masks and helmets. Despite the anonymity of these riders, they can wander around inside these residential accommodations with impunity, especially because the outside door of these flats is often controlled remotely. Some of the elevators actually open into private apartments.
As has been mentioned already, a vulnerable 80 year- old lady opened the door of her flat from the lift and was confronted by one of these helmeted, masked foreigners. When she tried to shut the door, he prevented her shutting the door by putting his foot across the threshold into her apartment. You can imagine how frightened she was. Besides the fear that these riders can stoke, they can also commit crimes within the building. Some of them have put graffiti all over the place, so there is a real problem here.
Another thing we have to bear in mind is that these people are often involved in human trafficking and can be in the country illegally, as has been mentioned. This month, 171 illegal delivery riders have been arrested. My amendment is the first step in addressing all this criminal behaviour. It would enable an accurate diagnosis of the problem, the impact of which is particularly felt by the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support all three amendments, particularly the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. I have tabled amendments with general concerns about cyclists putting pedestrians at risk. The Government did not accept those. These amendments are different. It is no coincidence that the three people who tabled them have physical challenges that they overcome every day. Although as pedestrians we all face challenges with cyclists, if you cannot get out of the way, cannot see them coming and will sustain more grievous injuries should you be hit, that group in society is even more vulnerable. We should listen carefully to the case that they have made.
This Government and even the Lib Dems are a little complacent about responding to the general point about cyclists being held to account. There is almost a patting on the head: “There are not that many people dying or getting injured compared with those being hit by cars”. Well, 25 people have been killed by cyclists over the last 10 years, and it mattered to those families. It should matter to the Government to take some action.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, merely asks for a review to gather evidence, particularly in the narrow area of commercial operations that employ cyclists, rather than just general cycling. The link between the cyclist and the employer has got more vicarious. Many of them are on zero-hour contracts and provide the cycles themselves. They do not always visit the operating centres of their employer. The employer says, “We didn’t buy the bikes; we don’t see the bikes. What has what they do when they are working for us got to do with us?”
I was out a few days ago with the City of London Police and saw that these people clearly are operating on behalf of a commercial company. There is a vicarious liability for the employer, but in no way is that link being established at the moment. The employers or companies could look at the data on the bikes. They could establish how often they were being operated. Sometimes this is beyond normal employment practice. They could establish which streets they went on. Many of them are going the wrong way down certain streets, which would be clear if they were to look at the data.
At the very least, this review might want to consider that an employer could do more positive things than just employ sanctions. They could start to educate their cyclists and reward them for better behaviour. Many employers of HGV drivers and bus drivers have schemes advertised on the rear of the vehicles: “If you don’t like how our driver is driving, please let us know”. They could do that for cyclists. You might say, “There’s no registration plate”. I argue for a registration plate. If you do not like that idea, they could have highlighters with details on the back advertising which company they were employed by and who you might report it to if you were not happy with the driving of that cycle. You are then starting to bear down on some of the accountability, which would gradually improve road safety. I am sure the Government are not blind to the problem, but people are worried about the amount of bureaucracy that would be needed and are frightened of having to establish it. I understand the administrative burden, but it is important to make incremental steps to start to have some impact in this important area.
At the very least, this review could establish some data on which we could all debate. It is insufficient for anecdotes to drive policy, but the anecdotes are so frequent and obvious that there is underpinning data that is not being collected. A review such as this would collect data, inform policy and make sure that any proposed changes were reasonable and likely to have some effect.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with Amendments 346C and 481. I start from the premise of not seeking further reviews, but I am a bicyclist. I bicycle very regularly in London; I did so this very morning from King’s Cross to here on an electric bike, and that is my new usual means of transport when I come from Lincolnshire.
I think, in fact, that there are two quite distinct problems that need to be addressed. One is the simple behaviour of bicyclists on the road. There are already many regulations that apply, such as not to ride on pavements, to have batteries of an appropriate kind, to comply with traffic signs and all that. One thing that one sees all the time is an extraordinary denial of the law by riders. That is a matter of enforcement. I think it is very difficult to enforce, because, frankly, the police have better things to do with their time. I have some sympathy with that view. That is one discrete problem.
A much more worrying problem, which has been alluded to by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Shinkwin, is about the relationship between the delivery companies and the delivery riders. That relationship is worth looking into carefully. It is right to inquire about the following: what is the nature of the employment; by whom are the bicycles provided; what steps are taken to ensure that the riders comply with the law; and where does the liability to pay compensation arise? If the riders are regular employees, the ordinary principles of vicarious liability arise; if they are sort of independent contractors, presumably the delivery companies are not liable to pay compensation.
These are the sorts of questions that I think could sensibly be addressed by either the Department for Transport or the Home Office. I am not sure I want to see a review of a formal kind, as it takes a very long time, but I do think that there are issues seriously to be addressed about the relationship between the riders and the delivery companies.
With regard to Amendment 416K, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, while again I have sympathy with the point that he is seeking to make, I cannot support what he is proposing, for two reasons. The first is a technical one: if you look at his amendment, the liabilities ultimately on the company arise out of the bad and dangerous driving of the rider. On any ordinary view, the company itself is not directly responsible for the criminal act of the rider, so we would be taking a vicarious liability rather too far, in my opinion.
Secondly, and quite differently—and I say this with some diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—there are no circumstances in which I would give the police the power to levy an unlimited fine. We have had far too many anxieties about the police—on occasion, the noble Lord himself has identified some—and, for the sake of preserving civil liberties, there is no way that this House should do that.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments, which very neatly follow on from the discussions we had on Monday, when there was a great deal of consensus around the Committee on the degree to which there is a problem, particularly with delivery riders on illegal e-bikes and delivery riders riding e-bikes illegally.
On my way back from your Lordships’ House on Monday, I saw a delivery rider riding the wrong way down Jermyn Street, about half a mile from here, doing about 20 mph. It is a one-way street and he was driving down it the wrong way. That is one anecdote, but walking here this afternoon, I saw a number of similar offences.
A number of different approaches to this problem have been suggested. The first is the major initiative that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would like to see—the registration of all cycles. There was some feeling that that would be difficult and perhaps a bit of a sledgehammer to crack quite a large nut.
The issue we have is that these delivery riders are flying under the flag, and are de facto commissioned contractors of, large companies whose agents, for want of a better term, are acting illegally. They are using illegal vehicles and are riding them illegally—the whole time. It is removing the incentive for those who seek to ride legal vehicles.
My noble friends are quite right to put the emphasis on those who can do something about this—the large companies that are commissioning these individuals to utilise these vehicles. They have to take responsibility for the actions of their agents. My noble friend Lord Hailsham may well have said that this goes beyond the law as it stands, but we are Parliament; we are here to change the law where we think that a change in the law will make a specific difference.
I have only one point, which is to urge the Ministers on the Government Front Bench, who have been diligent throughout the Bill and no doubt will be in the weeks to come, not to look too closely at their folders. I have not had a peep but I dare say the words are along the lines of, “Yes, isn’t it awful? There is a real problem. But it’s all very difficult to do something about”. This is the opportunity to do something about it, and I believe the Committee will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response, because we can all see illegal activity and people flouting the law.
The law is being brought into disrepute. There is almost no enforcement at all on this. Yet the Government, in the form of the Minister, say, “Well it’s very difficult but I’m not sure that any of the solutions that have been proposed will make any sort of difference”. If the Government do not like the amendments that my noble friends have proposed, fair enough, but let us hear their initiatives.
I feel that, if we do not get a satisfactory response, the House should not let this opportunity pass, when we have a Bill with clauses that deal directly with the issue of illegal cycling and sanctions. We need to do something about it. This is our moment. We look forward to a substantive response from His Majesty’s Government.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl on speaking to their amendments so eloquently. They take the debate one step further than the general debate that we had about dangerous and careless cycling, particularly on pavements—the main perpetrators of which are in fact delivery riders, as a number of us recorded in that debate.
What is particularly helpful about these three amendments is that they refer to the duties and responsibilities of the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has spoken about this on a number of occasions and we applaud the work of the City of London in pulling these perpetrators off the street, whether they are cyclists, e-cyclists or e-scooter riders, where they have broken the law. What is particularly appealing in my noble friend Lord McColl’s amendment is that he refers in particular to criminal activity. We know that e-scooters are heavily used in the theft of goods and telephones and the supply of illegal drugs. I almost posted a photograph of an e-bike that was mounting the pavement not far from here in Strutton Ground. I thought I would place it on Facebook. I am rather pleased that I did not, because he went on to do a drugs drop on Strutton Ground. There were schoolchildren and families there. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s amendment also highlights how it is particularly the disabled, the less able and the elderly, but also young people with families and those using wheelchairs, who are put at great risk. That has been highlighted by this group of amendments.
I shall put two questions to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for when he sums up. What actions is the Home Office taking in this regard, outside the City of London and the one-off operations we have heard of, where 70 bicycles were taken off the street in one day? My husband is convinced that, every time one of these operations takes place, the word goes round the delivery drivers and they tell each other not to go out that day because enforcement is out, and therefore they evade that enforcement. What are the Government going to do to improve enforcement by the Home Office? We have moved one step further from the debate on Monday. This is a debate not just about transport and cycling but about people using e-bikes, pedal bikes and e-scooters for illegal and criminal activities.
I have a second question for the noble Lord, Lord Katz. My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked what happens to bikes that have been seized, but I have a wider question. What is the power to seize and confiscate pedal bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters? Do we as private citizens have the power to conduct a private arrest where we see an illegal activity taking place? Are we putting ourselves at undue risk in that regard? I hope that we will get a full response to these questions. Perhaps the Government might come forward with their own amendments because, where this is leading to criminal activities, as we have established it is, it is nonsensical to let it continue to its current extent. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group from the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl, are trying to probe the issue of who is responsible for dangerous cycling by cyclists working for delivery companies. While I support their aims, I do not associate myself with all the points they have raised and, indeed, the language that they have used. However, this is a real issue and one that many of us have looked at over recent years as we have seen this rise of delivery companies, whether it is for your shopping, takeaways or virtually anything you want from the click on your device.
This does not cover just pedal cyclists; it applies equally to those who provide deliveries on motorcycles and e-scooters. In the past, I worked on this at London City Hall to see whether we could work with, for example, the food delivery companies that we have heard so much about today, to see whether we could provide additional training for their cyclists and motor- cyclists, perhaps looking at some sort of charter mark to show that they had higher standards to deliver goods around the city, ensuring that we have professional riders providing this service on our streets.
However, the challenge is that most riders and scooters, as has been mentioned, are not employees of these companies, whose legal advice is that they do not want to go anywhere near that, because then they may be responsible for their cyclists’ or motorcyclists’ behaviour. In fact, you may find that some of these riders are working at the same time for a number of these companies, so it becomes even more complex to work out and identify which company would be responsible. However, the amendments raise an important safety point and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this area about any ways forward to try to address this growing concern.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin in what I might say was rather a poignant way.
The amendments probe the liability of courier companies, specifically for the actions of their employees who use cycling as their method of transportation. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin spoke of the threat posed by these cyclists to a disabled person, for example. Amendment 346C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, asks for a review looking at how the law could be changed to ensure that bicycle courier companies are held accountable for their riders.
Noble Lords will be aware of the explosive growth of bicycle delivery and courier services, and many of those courier companies are not held responsible for the dangerous manner in which their riders behave. Many of the most dangerous incidents are caused by delivery riders under pressure to meet tight deadlines and often operating fast, heavy e-bikes. Holding companies responsible, or at least requiring a public review of their practices, would help deter irresponsible riding and shift the burden back on to the companies that profit from high-speed delivery models. A review of this kind would also allow us to examine the employment models used by these companies, the incentives placed on riders and the adequacy of training, supervision and enforcement mechanisms. It would provide a valuable evidence base for any future legislative change, rather than relying on piecemeal responses to individual incidents.
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for Amendment 416K and the passion with which he spoke in support of it. It would give the police power to issue fines of an unlimited amount to delivery companies for dangerous cycling offences
“under sections 27A (causing death by dangerous cycling), 27B (causing serious injury by dangerous cycling), 28B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) or 28C (causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) of the Road Traffic Act 1988”.
We support the intention behind the amendment, whose aim is to hold companies that hire large numbers of delivery drivers to account for the actions of their hired staff. This is an important principle and touches on the important points of what frameworks and policies companies have in place to ensure that their own staff are abiding by the laws of the road. While questions would clearly need to be addressed around proportionality, enforcement and evidential thresholds, the amendment raises legitimate concerns about the status quo. I hope the amendment has made the Government reflect on whether current penalties fall too heavily on individual riders, while the companies that benefit financially from the delivery model escape meaningful consequences. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Amendment 481, tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich, proposes a review into bicycle and motorcycle delivery services and their potential links to criminal activity. We are broadly supportive of the principle behind the amendment. It seeks to shine a light on a range of issues that are often raised by residents and local authorities, including concerns about organised crime, exploitation, immigration compliance and the impact of delivery riders on community safety.
Taken together, these amendments raise serious and timely questions about accountability, public safety and the responsibility of large delivery platforms. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is absolutely right that the Government must acknowledge the argument and come up with answers. The words of my noble friend Lord Goschen summed it up perfectly: this is an opportunity to do something positive about a very real problem, and to do it now in this Bill. I hope the Government will engage constructively with the issues raised and set out how they intend to ensure that the rapid growth of this sector does not come at the expense of safety and public confidence.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments, in their different ways, seek to extend liability for the unlawful actions of cyclists to their employers or contractors. Amendment 346C, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, proposes a review of the new cycling offences provided for in Clause 106 one year after the clause comes into force. He set out its provisions with clarity, his customary humility and his personal perspective, and we are all grateful for him doing so. As I understand the noble Lord, the intention of such a review is to assess whether the new offences have impacted the standard of cycling by delivery riders, and whether further changes in the law are required to ensure that their employers or contractors take greater responsibility for the cycling standards of their workers.
To be clear, these offences apply to all cyclists regardless of the purpose of their journey or whether they are paid to do it. I, of course, recognise the very real concerns around the behaviour of delivery riders that we have discussed in this group of amendments, but I completely reject the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that we are somehow being complacent and ignoring the issue. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about the importance of using the opportunity to do something positive, and I will come on to that in a second. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for sharing her experience from City Hall of the Greater London Authority, the mayor’s office and TfL.
We of course recognise the concerns about the behaviour of delivery riders, but it is harder to find firm evidence to suggest that their behaviour is so demonstrably worse than that of other groups that it is necessary to single them out for review—hard evidence, I would say, looking at the faces of some noble Lords opposite. Furthermore, it is not clear what such a review would achieve. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance already makes it clear that those who drive or ride for work should have the skills and expertise required to be safe on the road. The key thing here is that the Department for Transport—we discussed this on Monday in Committee; certainly, I spoke to it on one of the later groups—is also developing a new road safety strategy, and we will set out more details shortly. That will be a holistic strategy around all elements of road safety including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, road users and public transport drivers—the whole gamut. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that is the opportunity for us to do something positive and take a holistic approach to improving road safety. We are not playing down these issues but just trying to find the best way of approaching them in a sense that is complete and wholescale rather than piecemeal.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. In previous Bills, the Department for Transport has made exactly the point that he is making, which is that a strategy is coming. It was due in the summer of this year, we are now at Christmas and there is no date, so I am not reassured by that general point.
I was surprised to hear the Minister say that we are struggling to find evidence of the problem that we are all talking about, because you only have to walk outside. Our newspapers and broadcasters are carrying out surveys showing what we all know to be true—not to blame cyclists for everything in the world, but there is clear evidence it is happening, so I am surprised he said that.
Finally, I wonder whether the Minister would like to look into the health data. We have talked only about the police data. The health data is completely different. When people go to A&E, their GP et cetera for injuries caused by cyclists, it is not recorded in the same way as it is by the police. We have two sets of data which we are not bringing together; we only ever talk about the data collected by the police. I was surprised to hear the Minister say they could not find the data.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, I was talking about evidence of causality rather than necessarily data on incidents. Let me make some progress, and maybe the noble Lord will be a little mollified by the time I get to the end of my contribution—or maybe not.
The fundamental purpose of the new offence is to—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am sorry, but I am afraid that saying that there is no evidence of causality is just what the Department for Transport wants the Home Office to believe. The evidence is quite clear; there are no better words than from the Mayor of London himself, Sadiq Khan, who said it is a Wild West out there. Many other councils in London are now trying to ban bikes from their areas because of the danger they cause, and those heavy, gigantic food delivery couriers are the worst offenders of all.
Lord Katz (Lab)
Again, I say to the noble Lord that I will make some progress and then he may come back at me again before I finally sit down.
The fundamental purpose of the new offences is to appropriately punish offenders and deter dangerous cycling behaviours. There is no carve-out or special provision for delivery riders. To be clear, all road users will face equal treatment before the law under these provisions. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that, like all new government enactments, the Crime and Policing Act will be subject to post-legislative review three to five years after Royal Assent, so there is the opportunity to review the action.
Amendment 416K from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would allow for food delivery companies to receive an unlimited fine should any of their riders be convicted of any offences under Clause 106. A complicating factor around this, as many noble Lords recognised, is that many such riders operate in the gig economy—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, set that out particularly well. We are not always talking about the relationship between an employer and an employee, so using what we would consider normal working relationship incentives and rule structures is not always the easiest thing to do.
It is worth stating, particularly as the Employment Rights Bill finally finished its passage through Parliament yesterday, that as part of that wider package of employment reforms, there will be a major consultation on employment status which will help to clarify these grey areas. Again, I cite the contribution that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that is probably the best place to have a review of the grey areas around contractors and employers working in the gig economy. A problem has clearly been identified in the delivery driving sector, but there are many other sectors— I remember from my time spent in Committee on the Employment Rights Bill that there are lots of areas where the lack of clarity on employment status is causing all sorts of consequences.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am so grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again; I hope this will be the last time. If he and my noble friend Lord Hailsham are correct that the current law on vicarious liability might mean that Deliveroo and Uber Eats are not liable for the agents they are using, does he accept my noble friend Lord Goschen’s point that we are Parliament and, if the current law does not cover it, we can amend the law as we suggest to make sure that those companies are liable for the people who deliver food in their name, with a great big bag on their back advertising that?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not disagree with the proposition that the noble Lord makes. Of course, we are Parliament, but I suggest that we should legislate in a slightly more deliberative way than simply shooting at ducks ad hoc as they come up in the stall.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
On that point, does the noble Lord accept that there is an essential distinction between vicarious liability in civil law, which is to pay compensation for people injured by employers or whoever, and vicarious liability for criminal actions, which is something quite different and very rarely imposed?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am certainly happy to defer to the noble Viscount’s legal experience and expertise. It is worth the Committee noting that distinction and I am grateful to him for making that point.
To that point, the individual must bear responsibility for their actions and face consequences for them, which is fundamentally the purpose of Clause 106. There is no hard evidence to suggest that the working practices of these companies either cause or contribute to serious injuries or fatalities involving cyclists or other road users. That is a relatively rare occurrence. We understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made on the rareness; obviously, any death is one too many, but it is a relatively rare occurrence compared to, say, collisions involving cars and pedestrians. Where that happens, however, we are determined to ensure the individual is held fully to account.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
Before my noble friend responds to the Minister’s wind-up speech, I put a gentle challenge to the Minister that the Committee was looking for a substantive response. I believe he was supportive, in principle, of the need for enhanced road safety but was not seriously acknowledging that there is a specific problem around delivery drivers, often riding e-bikes, and that we need to do something about that. I did not note a wave of support around the Committee for his contention that there was no evidence that there was a specific problem. Frankly, that is not a credible response. There is a problem. Every Peer in this Committee and everybody outside these gates knows that there is a problem. We need to do something about it.
I very much hope that my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl, when they come to give their intentions, will continue to press the Government hard. I hope that, on Report, if there is no movement—perhaps there are grounds for a discussion before then—they will bring forward amendments and see whether the Government have support or whether those who are seeking to change the law have support. Essentially, large companies are sponsoring and benefiting from law-breaking, and the Government are turning a blind eye. That is not acceptable.
Lord Katz (Lab)
In response to the noble Viscount, and perhaps anticipating what the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, will say, we are of course happy to do that. We have had a fair bit of engagement on many different aspects of this Bill, both before Committee and during it, and I imagine that will continue. Our collective doors remain open to discuss all the issues that the Bill raises. I would be very happy to meet all Peers interested in these issues.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. This has been a very useful debate that has brought the Committee together on an issue that has affected and is affecting so many of us.
The Minister was very kind in his remarks to me personally. Can I reciprocate by applauding the loyalty with which he stuck to the Department for Transport’s brief? It is entirely commendable, but I do feel that that script will not wash. He will sense from across the Committee that there is real alarm at the situation that confronts us in the immediate vicinity of Westminster and beyond.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that all these amendments, and, of course, as I would say, my own, are proportionate and necessary because, as my noble friend made clear, this is a case of our laws being flagrantly abused and broken. My noble friend Lord McColl is absolutely right, as I made clear in my speech, that this is really affecting those who are most vulnerable in our society, particularly those who, like me, have a mobility impairment or those who have a visual impairment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his remarks, because, as he said, this does matter. A review could be an incremental step to, in effect, reclaiming our streets and making them far more safe. Employers are falsely claiming wilful ignorance, and we need to stand up to them.
I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen, and I agree with him. This Bill presents the Committee with a unique opportunity to do something about this situation; this is, as he said, our moment. I also agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that it is nonsensical to allow crime to continue. I simply say to the Minister that I do not think his comment that the Bill will be subject to post-legislative review in three to five years quite reflects the urgency of the situation.
In closing, my condition means that I have to be a risk management expert, whether I like it or not. I have no choice. We have a choice here, and we need to act. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he is happy to meet in advance of Report. I believe that cycling is a very good thing. I use my manual chair for exercise—it is crucial for pain management—but cycling or using a manual chair also has wider health benefits. Equally, this sort of cycling, predominantly by delivery service couriers who frantically break every rule of the road to deliver a takeaway, is not good for pedestrians or cyclists. I look forward to bringing this back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling offences: supply of batteries for modification of cycles(1) Where an offence under sections 27A (causing death by dangerous cycling), 27B (causing serious injury by dangerous cycling), 28B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) or 28C (causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed on a cycle which has been modified since purchase with a battery, a person who supplied the battery for the modification may be charged with an offence if the battery—(a) has a maximum continuous rated power which exceeds 250 watts, or(b) does not comply with statutory guidelines on lithium-ion battery safety for e-bikes issued by the Office for Product Safety and Standards.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to put a penalty on the suppliers and sellers of batteries used for the modification of cycles used in the committing of offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I neglected to say at the start of my previous remarks that although it may be the case, as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin said, that the world would not stop turning if he was killed by an e-bike on the streets, my orbit would certainly be destroyed, as would that of many of us, if that were to happen to him. One possible solution might be that, when I fit a bulldozer blade to my chair, I can precede him and he can ride safely behind me.
My Amendment 346D states that if anyone is convicted of causing death or injury by dangerous or careless cycling, and if the e-bike has an illegal battery with a power rating greater than 250 watts or does not meet the approved standard, then the supplier of the battery should receive an unlimited fine imposed by the court, not the police. I think we would all agree that the concept I am trying to get at here is right. We must get at the suppliers of the batteries that do not conform to UL 2849, the US standard, or EN 15194, the European standard.
I admit that the problem here will be enforcement. Just like all the other illegal stuff we have wrestled with in this Bill—from knives to pornography—if it is sold online, it is very difficult to stop. Furthermore, illegal sellers will say that they thought the battery was for an off-road bike, which would be perfectly legal.
However, this is where the proposed new clause in my Amendment 416J might work. It would give the police a power that could be delegated to a local authority or other agents to perform. The proposed new clause says:
“If a retailer supplies batteries which do not comply with statutory guidelines on lithium-ion battery safety for e-bikes … the police may issue notices requiring the retailer to … recall relevant batteries from consumers … suspend the sale of relevant batteries, and … warn consumers about the risks of relevant batteries”.
Again, it is not perfect, and in some ways it is not nearly strong enough to cut off the illegal supply of batteries that are not compliant with either US or European construction standards.
My proposed new clause and the Bill are concerned with dangerous cycling. Recent figures show that there were 11,266 incidents involving e-bikes and e-scooters in 2023-24, and this figure is rising rapidly. Therefore, for the purposes of this Bill, we have to get at the supply of illegally doctored and excessively overpowered batteries. These are the same batteries that cause the most fires, including fatal ones. That is because the number of dangerous and non-compliant batteries in circulation is a significant and fast-growing problem.
Authorities rely on data regarding fires and product recalls to gauge the scale of the issue. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has issued 21 product recalls and published 29 product safety reports for unsafe e-bikes, e-scooters and batteries since 2022. Specific enforcement action was taken against the brand Unit Pack Power’s e-bike batteries, which were linked to several fires across England, with withdrawal notices issued to four online marketplaces, 20 sellers and the manufacturer.
The number of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries is surging rapidly. London Fire Brigade data shows that it responded to 88 e-bike fires in 2022; that figure rose to 134 in 2025, as of late September. In 2023, almost 200 fires involving e-bikes or e-scooters were reported across the UK, resulting in 10 fatalities. The rise in fires is primarily linked to unregulated conversion kits and low-cost batteries, often purchased from online marketplaces—but fires are not our concern today.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry again to rather disagree with my noble friend, although I have some sympathy with the underlying problem. I declare an interest in that I have three electric bikes, all of them, I hope, with fully approved batteries. One is the Brompton, on which I go from King’s Cross to this place—very good it is too, and, I hope, wholly safe.
There is a problem with batteries—my noble friend has addressed it—and particularly with regard to fires. Personally, I try never to charge a battery in a house, even with my bikes, which were both expensive and, I hope, very good. There is a problem with them that needs to be addressed, but the real problem with the amendment is that, other than providing the occasion for inspecting the battery, there is no obvious relationship between the criminal offences specified in the proposed new clause and looking at the battery. There is no necessary or, indeed, probable connection between the battery and the offence, so I am very much against linking those criminal offences with the inspection of the battery. Moreover, as my noble friend has said, the enforcement problems are very great here, because most or many of these batteries are bought online, and trying to identify the contract of supply would be next to impossible.
However, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the danger of batteries which are inherently unsafe, and right too to draw attention to the fact that people are disconnecting the controls on their bicycles so that they can go very much faster than the law allows. Those are matters which should be addressed by the Government, but not, I think, via this particular amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, it is of course a criminal offence to ride your e-bike at more than a specified rate. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when he rides any of his e-bikes, complies with those requirements at all times. But if it is already an offence to ride a bike at more than a specified speed, it must surely already be an offence to provide a battery for the specific purpose of enabling the rider to break the law. I do not understand why that is not already a criminal offence.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I am afraid I disagree. On the roads, it is certainly an offence to use an e-bike beyond a certain speed—I think it is 15 miles an hour—but, of course, e-bikes are also used for off-road purposes, and at that point, the speed regulations are not in play.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Then the answer to the problem is to ensure that the speed limits apply whenever the e-bike is used. I fail to understand why it is a criminal offence to use your e-bike above a specified speed on the road, but not on the pavement. It seems ridiculous.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I use one of my e-bikes to go around my fields. In fact, I do not go at more than 15 mph because, first, I would fall off; secondly, it is not necessary; and thirdly, the bike cannot do so. However, I cannot see why, as a matter of principle, I should be restrained from going at more than 15 mph on my own land.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I do not want to prolong this, but the purpose of this amendment is not to regulate the speed of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on his field. The concern is e-bike riders on pavements, and I suggest that the answer is to ensure that people cannot ride more than a specified speed on the pavements, if at all. Of course, they are not allowed to ride on the pavement at all, so they should not be doing so. The point, surely, is that if there is a specified speed limit, it is already a criminal offence to conspire to provide a battery for the specific purpose of enabling e-bike riders to break the speed limit.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, we have heard some jolly clever speeches. It seems to me that the general point of this group of amendments, and indeed the previous one, is to bring this matter of great public concern to the attention of the Government during this debate. We are not now, this afternoon, looking for statutory perfection; we are looking for the Government to pay attention, and every one of us, be it my noble friend Lord Goschen walking here, or my noble friend Lord Hailsham riding at a reasonable speed from King’s Cross to this place, has our own experiences and anecdotal stories to inform the House and this debate.
I really do not think we need to get stuck in the weeds; we just need to get the Government to be a little braver. Yes, they should read out the departmental notes they have in front of them, but they should also realise that this is a matter of real and pressing public concern. The use of e-cycles by drug dealers and others, who wear the stolen uniforms of respectable companies to deliver drugs here, there and everywhere, with no lights on their bikes, wearing balaclavas and dark clothing, at night, placing themselves and other road users in danger, is a matter of deep concern. That is what we need to get across to the Government, and I hope they will take the general point on board, even if they disapprove of the niceties of the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we discussed earlier, we have seen a huge rise in fast food and other deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters across our cities, and of course internationally too. The whole model for these deliveries is based on time— carrying out as many deliveries as possible in as short a time as possible. This constant pressure can lead to riders taking risks that endanger not only themselves but other road users and pedestrians. These risks include installing bigger batteries.
This group of amendments is timely and of the moment, given the rise in these bikes and scooters. However, kits are increasingly being bought online that are used to adapt regular cycles into e-cycles. These are causing not only serious safety issues on our streets but fire safety issues, as we have already heard. Therefore, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, look to tackle both the fire and road safety issues associated with non-compliant lithium-ion batteries. It does feel like there is a loophole in the law whereby unsafe batteries are being sold in the UK and are having a devastating effect. These are important issues, and I hope we hear some clear progress in this area from the Government.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as was mentioned earlier in Committee when speaking to Amendment 346, we take the issue of bike alterations very seriously. My noble friend Lord Blencathra raises a similar issue with these amendments, and, in placing the onus on suppliers, a two-pronged approach to tackling the issue is welcome.
We know that many of the most dangerous e-bikes on our roads are not the result of amateur tinkering alone. They are enabled by a market that supplies batteries far in excess of the 250-watt limit set out in law, or batteries that fail to meet even the most basic safety standards for lithium-ion technology. These batteries transform what should be a pedal-assisted cycle into something much closer to an unregistered electric motorcycle, which is often capable of significant speed and acceleration, and frequently used in dense urban areas, on pavements and in shared spaces.
There is also a wider public safety dimension. Unsafe lithium-ion batteries are not merely a road safety issue; they are a growing fire risk in homes, flats and shared accommodation. The London Fire Brigade and other services have repeatedly warned about fires caused by substandard e-bike batteries, often supplied online with little oversight and no meaningful accountability. This amendment would reinforce the message that safety standards are not optional, and that those who profit from ignoring them may—indeed, should—face consequences.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am grateful to the nobleLord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments on the regulation of e-bike batteries. Your Lordships’ House may recall the recent passage through this House of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, which received Royal Assent in July and underlines the Government’s determination to take action on this point. Amendment 346D would provide for the prosecution of any person who had supplied an unsafe battery to an individual who was subsequently convicted of any of the offences in Clause 106 of the Bill.
While an unsafe battery—and by this I mean one that does not comply with existing product safety standards—could put the e-bike at risk of catching fire, particularly while placed on charge, as we have heard from many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, this would not directly lead to a person riding their cycle carelessly or dangerously. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, anticipated my argument and posited it more eloquently than I might have done. The battery is simply that which powers the e-bike: it cannot, on its own, enable the rider to overcome speed or power restrictions provided for in regulations. This would come from a broader set of modifications concerning the electric motor and other component parts, and I will come on to that in a bit. As the battery would not play a direct role in any incident leading to a prosecution of the kind provided for at Clause 106, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will see that this amendment is not required.
In moving his amendment, the noble Lord also talked about the chips that allow bikes to be driven at frankly hair-raising speeds that make them unsafe for the user, let alone others. To be clear, those modifications are already illegal: e-bikes with those chips do not comply with the electrically assisted pedal cycle regulations. Therefore, there is already a law in place to cover this.
Lord Mawson (CB)
The Minister talked about taking action. Those are very fine words, but every day, many of us watch e-bikes and ordinary bikes going past the outside of this building, driving through red lights. Many of us have experienced driving up and down roads with people coming down one-way systems at us in the wrong direction. We have watched police at the side of these road, including here, taking no action whatever. What does “taking action” actually mean, in practice and in detail, even outside this building?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am not sure whether the noble Lord was here for the previous group, when we talked at length on the wider issue of the use of e-bikes. As I said then, the DfT is undertaking a road safety strategy consultation, which will take a holistic view of road safety across all motor transport, including, very importantly, protecting pedestrians and those in mobility scooters and wheelchairs. That is the right way to approach this and is at the heart of the discussion we had on the previous group.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I think that noble Lords and Ministers are getting the message from nearly all sides of the Committee—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—that there is a real problem here that the Government are not addressing.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I entirely accept that there is mischief here. My comments were addressed at the specifics of the amendment—but I accept that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful for the clarification from the noble Lord; I did not wish to misquote him. Following his comments, I note that, of the thousands of batteries for sale, none of them specifically say, “Buy this battery and illegally break the law. Add it to your legal bike and break the law by going on the pavement”—they are more subtle than that. The closest I came was in the example I cited in the debate on the previous group, where one company said that its bike—capable of speeds of 64 kilometres per hour—was suitable for “off-road and commuting”. The advertising is much more subtle, but everyone knows what is going on. These batteries are being sold for illegal purposes.
The problem I had with these amendments was that, to get them in scope of the Bill, I had to pull my punches and narrowly tweak them in some ways. Therefore, of course the amendments are technically flawed. I would have liked to put down an amendment on the chips, but that, I think, was not in order. To try to get at the concept of the problem, which all noble Lords support, I had to put down amendments that I accept are flawed. However, what the amendments seek to achieve is consistent with the rest of the Bill: we have had problems with knife crime, so, in addition to penalties for the carriers and users, the Bill has clauses trying to cut off and penalise the online suppliers—and the same goes for crossbows. Then we have all the sexual offences in Part 5 of the Bill, again with attempts to tackle the online supply of illegal photos, as well as lots more clauses on the online supply of illegal material.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. He pointed out that it is easy to pick out flaws—I can pick all the flaws myself—and the technical faults in these amendments. However, what we are getting at here is that every noble Lord who has spoken feels that the Government are not doing enough on this issue. I believe that we can do a lot more. Of course, I want the police to grab every massive, overweight and overfast illegal bike out there and destroy it, but they will never keep up with the supply. We have to cut off the supply, and my amendments, in their inadequate way, were seeking to do that.
I am grateful to the Minister, because I think we have had a bit of movement over the past two days, with the Home Office now offering to discuss with colleagues how we can get this a lot better. I hope that we can, with noble Lords around the Committee, agree something on Report that tackles the specific problem, without causing great new problems of enforcement. Something needs to be done. I do not think we are prepared to wait for the Department for Transport’s strategy on safer cycling or road use, which we may never see. I suspect that, when we do see it, it will be grossly inadequate in tackling the scourge of huge, heavy, illegal e-bikes mowing down pedestrians on the pavement. Since both Ministers have been kind enough to agree to meet us before Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in opposing the proposition that Clause 107 should stand part of the Bill, I will speak also to my opposition to Clauses 108 and 109. These clauses were added by the Government without any debate on Report in the other place; therefore, they have not been subjected to the detailed scrutiny that they deserve. It is only right that, as the revising Chamber, we should fulfil our duty in that respect.
I will be clear from the outset that we on these Benches do not doubt for a moment the courage, dedication and indispensable role of our emergency workers. Indeed, the previous Conservative Government legislated to bring forward the specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker through the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. However, we must also ensure that the criminal law remains proportionate, coherent and workable, and in our view these clauses fail that test. Clauses 107, 108 and 109 introduce a series of new offences on the racial or religiously aggravated abuse of emergency workers. The Government present these measures as necessary enhancements to the law to protect emergency workers from abuse motivated by racial or religious hostility. No one disputes the seriousness of such conduct. But these clauses do not simply strengthen existing protections; they create overlapping, confusing and potentially sweeping new offences that go beyond what is necessary or desirable in a free society.
The provisions duplicate offences that are already well established in our law. Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour motivated by racial or religious hostility is already an offence under Sections 18 and 29B of the Public Order Act 1986. I completely understand that those offences cannot be committed inside a dwelling, while the new offences in Clauses 107 and 108 can be committed inside a person’s house. That is a key difference between these offences.
Both clauses also require the conduct to be racially or religiously hostile, but, again, that aggravation is already captured by the criminal law. Section 66 of the Sentencing Code creates a statutory aggravating factor for any offence based on racial and religious hostility. Furthermore, Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 creates a specific offence of using words or behaviour that cause “harassment, alarm or distress” and are religiously or racially aggravated. That offence can be committed inside a dwelling, so a person who racially abuses an emergency worker inside their home can already be prosecuted under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. It is abundantly clear that there is absolutely no need for these new offences.
Clause 107 in particular casts an extraordinarily wide net. It includes not only threatening but insulting behaviour. This is a highly subjective term that will not create clarity or certainty—but do not take my word for it. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has criticised these clauses for this precise reason. Its 11th report states:
“Clause 107 criminalises ‘insults’ and clause 108 introduces the term ‘distress’. This potentially leaves people open to criminal sanction on a subjective basis. In addition, clause 108 includes a defence for ‘reasonable conduct’, which is not defined. As a result, the precise scope of these clauses, and the criminal offences contained within them, is uncertain”.
In Clause 108, matters become even more troubling. The clause would criminalise conduct merely likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, again with the addition of racial or religious hostility, but with penalties that do not align with the broader public order framework. Here we see threatening or abusive behaviour that is already covered elsewhere reframed in a way that risks catching behaviour far removed from the core of criminal wrongdoing. While a defendant may raise a defence, the burden-shifting mechanism in subsection (7) is unusual and risks being applied inconsistently.
It is a long-standing principle that the criminal law should be carefully calibrated, limited to what is necessary and drafted so that ordinary citizens can understand the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. The law must be strong where it matters, not sprawling and duplicative. When Parliament repeatedly layers offence upon offence, we risk incoherence, overcriminalisation and legal uncertainty, none of which helps emergency workers or the public. If the Government believe that the existing framework is insufficient, they should amend those statutes directly and not create parallel criminal regimes that overlap and contradict one another.
In conclusion, Clauses 107 and 108 are unnecessary and duplicative and risk expanding the criminal law in ways that Parliament has previously rejected. They confuse rather than clarify. They undermine coherence rather than strengthen protection. We owe emergency workers the best possible statutory safeguards, but they must be safeguards that work. These clauses do not. For that reason, and in the interests of principled and proportionate criminal law, I urge the Committee to oppose Clauses 107 and 108.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly because we have very important business in future amendments. I heartily endorse the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Why were these proposals—which, after all, attract cross- party support, as indeed the 2018 legislation did—not brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny or debate and discussion at an earlier stage in the other place? They were introduced only at a later stage. For all the reasons my noble friend gave, there would have been a proper debate about whether it is right to bring forward legislation that includes potential incarceration for up to two years for an offence. In fact, it is quite incongruent because it does not look at sexual orientation and disability, for instance, only racially biased hate crime in private dwellings. Why was it not brought forward at an earlier stage, when I think all sides of the House would have been predisposed to support it and debate it properly?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has explained all my reservations about these clauses very articulately, so I will not repeat them. They add an unnecessary implication that the public are a threat to emergency workers. Why are religiously and racially aggravated offences being highlighted here, as though members of the general public were somehow prone to that kind of behaviour? It is an unhelpful signposting because, as has been rightly pointed out, if emergency workers are dealt with aggressively or harassed in any way, we have laws to deal with it. To highlight this implies that there is something extra to be added, that there is a problem out there of the public going around racially abusing workers, and that there are particular offences in mind. Duplication of law ends up being virtue signalling. I am not sure that virtue is being signalled, but none the less it seems to be a box-ticking exercise rather than an effective piece of lawmaking.
I am also very worried about the notion of “insulting behaviour”. I am probably guilty of it; one does get frustrated sometimes. What on earth does it mean? It is entirely subjective. What is insulting behaviour? It would be helpful for the Minister to give us illustrations and examples of what constitutes insulting behaviour. How will people be charged with this? It immediately makes people fearful of raising complaints or of being frustrated in public. If the ambulance has not turned up for a long time and your husband is dying of a heart attack, you might be a bit fraught. Somebody might interpret that as insulting behaviour. It might be perfectly rational, reasonable behaviour and not criminal. I am worried that this is creating a toxic atmosphere where none need be there. I cannot understand why it is there.
The words “likely to cause” feel far too much like pre-crime. What is “likely to cause”? These are criminal offences. If you are charged with them, you will be seen potentially as a hate criminal. Therefore, the Government have to give us a very detailed explanation as to why they feel these clauses are needed, so that we can scrutinise it. As they are presently given, I am not happy at all. I will support any move to have them removed from the Bill.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we take a very different view and strongly support Clauses 107 and 108, which recognise a simple reality. Emergency workers can face racially or religiously aggravated abuse whenever and wherever they are carrying out their duties, including in private homes. They cannot choose their environment or walk away from hostility. Their professional duty is to step into what are at times chaotic, volatile situations, and to stay there until the job is done. The law should follow them into those settings and make clear that such targeted hostility is no more acceptable in a hallway or a living room than it is on a street corner. This debate has shown that the issue is not about policing opinion or curtailing lawful expression but about drawing a firm line between free speech and deliberate acts of intimidation directed at those who protect the public.
These clauses are drafted to catch only behaviour that crosses that line in aggravated circumstances, and they sit alongside, rather than in place of, the wider framework of public order and hate crime. In our view, striking them out would send the wrong message, undermining our commitment to those who protect us. Looking ahead, it will of course be vital that their use is monitored and that guidance for police and prosecutors is kept under review, so that the balance struck here remains both proportionate and effective in practice.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister rises, could I ask a simple question? It would seem to me that, under the definition of emergency workers in Section 3(1)(j) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, an emergency worker is
“a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide ... NHS health services, or … services in the support of the provision of NHS health services”.
I think we all support the words of the Secretary of State for Health, but is he in danger of falling into the trap of criticising the BMJ for the action it has taken?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I will come back to that point in a moment. I think the noble Lord is trying to inject a slight bit of topicality into a different argument, but I respect his opportunities in trying to raise those issues.
I say at the outset that I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on this, which is why we brought this forward. I am grateful to her for standing up and supporting the objectives of the Government in her contribution. I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I cannot and will not support their approach to delete these clauses from the Bill.
Emergency workers, as the noble Baroness has said, risk their safety every day to protect the public. They deserve robust protection through legislation, especially against abuse directed towards them because of their protected characteristics, which is not only harmful but erodes the principle of respect and public service, which are core values of this democracy.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, when emergency workers walk through a door of a private dwelling, they are faced with the circumstances in that private dwelling; they cannot walk away. They are there because of an emergency—perhaps medical, police or fire—and, if they face abuse in that private dwelling, then they deserve our support, just as they have our support if they face abuse on the street for a racially aggravated reason. If somebody does something at the end of their path on a street in Acacia Avenue and abuses them, they will find themselves under the course of the law on those matters.
I believe—and this is what these clauses are about—that, if the emergency worker is racially abused in the property, then they deserve that protection. It is critical for sectors such as health, fire and policing to have that legal support. We cannot leave them, as the noble Baroness rightly said, to be abused. The law must recognise this and make sure we have proper protection.
Currently, as has been mentioned, the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provide important safeguards in public spaces. It is not acceptable to call somebody a racially abusive name in a public space, so why is it to call them that name in a place of a private dwelling? It is not acceptable, so we are going to bring those clauses into play.
The noble Lord asks why we do this. We do this because Sergeant Candice Gill of Surrey Police, supported by the deputy chief constable—and, may I just say, by the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Surrey—has campaigned for this change in the law, having personally experienced racial abuse in a private home. It is not a sort of technical matter that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have mentioned; it is a real issue of racial abuse in a private dwelling to a police officer—who is doing her job, serving and trying to protect and support the public, and is being racially abused with no consequence whatsoever. Sergeant Candice Gill, after whom I would be proud to call this legislation Candice’s law, is campaigning and has campaigned to make this an amendment to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked why we brought it forward in the House of Commons as an amendment. I will tell him why: it was brought to our attention, it is an action we do not support, and it is an area where we think action needs to be taken. That is why we have brought it. I do not think it is fair that people are racially abused in homes. Sergeant Candice Gill has campaigned on this and has brought it to the attention of the Government; we brought an amendment forward in the House of Commons which is now before this House, and I believe it should have support.
Clauses 107 to 109 will close that legislative loophole. The removal of the dwelling exception will make racially or religiously aggravated abuse of an emergency worker in a private dwelling an offence. The change will ensure that offenders prosecuted under Clause 107 face a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The offence in Clause 108 will be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4. As I have said, Lisa Townsend, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Surrey, said:
“This long-overdue change to the law would never have happened without Sgt Gill’s courage and determination”.
I think we owe this to Sergeant Gill and any other officer, health worker, fire service worker or police officer who has been racially abused in a home where they have gone to help support individuals. They deserve our support.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I think we need to put it on record that everyone deprecates racially aggravated abuse of hard-working, decent emergency workers—that is taken as read. But the noble Lord is asking us to consider legislation when we already have a situation, under Section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which permits a court to consider any offence that has been racially or religiously aggravated. Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for a separate offence where a person commits an offence under Sections 4, 4A or 5 of the Public Order Act.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Much as I would love to be intervened on by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who I believe will be supporting my amendment later on, I am intervening on the Minister, and we are not allowed to intervene on interventions.
If I may beg the Committee’s indulgence, I finally say to the Minister that the Select Committee on the Constitution specifically said:
“Clause 107 criminalises ‘insults’ and clause 108 introduces the term ‘distress’. This potentially leaves people open to criminal sanction on a subjective basis”.
Not only do we already have existing legislation, but the language in this new legislation is sufficiently loose that it will give rise, I think, to unintended consequences.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord will accept that I am not indicating that he or anybody else would accept that language, but the point is that we have to define and be clearer about the definition in relation to racially aggravated insults. The reason that we brought this forward is that, on the back of police representations from senior officers in Surrey Police—and from Sergeant Candice Gill, who was herself racially abused—and with the support of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, having examined this internally, we believe that the law needs to be clarified, which is why we have brought this legislation forward.
The noble Lord also asked me to examine why it is covering only race and religion, why we do not cover protected characteristics of sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability, and why the Government have not tabled such an amendment. He will know that the Law Commission is already examining its review of hate crime laws. It is a complex area, and it is important we get the changes right. I will tell him this: we are considering that and have given a manifesto commitment to do so, and, ensuring that we do that, we will bring forward conclusions at Report stage in this House to give effect to those manifesto commitments on sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability to extend the proposals still further. I give him notice of that now so that he does not accuse me of pulling a fast one on Report. We will do that, but we will have to bring forward the details of it in due course.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Briefly, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is quite right that I have long shared some concerns about the rubric and precise drafting of concepts of alarm and distress—we are coming to them later—so of course I have concerns about them being adopted into the precise drafting of the offence. But, on the basic principle, is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that there is no point in citing provisions on racially aggravated offences if the conduct is not an offence and that the justification for taking the serious step of applying Public Order Act principles to a domestic dwelling is that these emergency workers have no choice but to be in that dwelling, sometimes putting themselves in harm’s way as part of their service to the public? On the principle of having an offence such as this, I wonder whether my noble friend agrees.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do agree with my noble friend. As I said in my introductory remarks and as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, when an emergency worker turns up at a house and enters that property for a health reason concerning an individual in the property, a criminal justice reason involving activity that is causing threat and alarm and/or fire service duties, they do so to fulfil a duty. They have to stay in that property. If they are abused on the street before they enter the property, that is a punishable offence, yet unless this law change is accepted, when they enter the property that abuse is considered a principal part of the job that they have to just take on the chin. I do not accept that. That is why we included Clauses 107 to 109.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am inordinately grateful to the Minister for giving away, but he will know, because he was a diligent and assiduous constituency MP, that many of the people who go into clinical settings—for instance, A&E—are very distressed, discombobulated and upset about their condition, do not quite know what is going on and will sometimes say things they regret. I am not saying that is right. Some of them are not culturally sensitive, for instance. That may or may not reach a criminal threshold.
My main point—if we accept the principle that we need new legislation—is that, frankly, those people are in a very difficult position, and if we have loose and opaque language in primary legislation, we will have a situation where people who are not reaching the criminal threshold, or are doing so very marginally, are criminalised and are liable to go to prison for up to two years. Surely that is not something the Government are keen to encourage.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are keen to discourage racial abuse against individuals who are doing their job, and that is what Clauses 107 to 109 do. The clauses set out in legislation a broad thrust of definitions. Ultimately, in these cases, police and health workers usually have body-worn cameras on and the police will judge evidential material to determine whether they wish to refer it to the CPS. The CPS will review the incident that has led to the potential referral and determine whether it meets the evidential threshold and is worthy of prosecution. Then, if it comes before a court, it will be for that court to determine whether that criminal threshold has been crossed.
With all that, it is not a simple matter of us passing the legislation; it is also a matter of the judgment of police officers, CPS officials and ultimately a judge or jury in determining the outcome of those cases. As with most legislation, I want none of this to go to court. I want it to change the behaviour of people who are looking at a charge of using racially abusive language not on the street but in their home. I hope it sets a minimum standard, which is what this Parliament should be about, in saying that we will not tolerate this. That is why I support the inclusion of the clauses.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister is making a very strong case as to the principle behind these clauses, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. But will he address the specific concern of the Constitution Committee that the language used in these provisions—the concepts of “insulting” and “distress”—is too broad?
As he knows, the Constitution Committee concluded:
“These clauses should be drawn more narrowly and the Government should more clearly define the terminology within the Bill”.
Will the Government reflect on that before Report and come back with a more precise definition in these provisions?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. As ever, we will reflect on what has been said. The judgment we have made is as in the clauses before this House, as introduced and supported by the House of Commons. There will be opportunity, if the noble Lord so wishes, to table amendments on Report to reflect any view that he has, but this is the judgment we have made.
The principle of today’s discussion is that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, believes we should strike out these clauses. That is not a principle I can accept—I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on that. Whatever reflection takes place on this, our principle is that we have included these clauses for a purpose, which I hope I have articulated, and I wish for the Committee to support that principle.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Nobody here is going against the principle that we should not racially or religiously insult, harass or be vile to people. We are talking about changing the criminal law and ensuring that the concerns of the Constitution Committee—not mine or those of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, or anyone else—are looked at again, so that the “real life” that the Minister referred to in justifying this reflects the fact that in many instances emergency workers are called when people are at the height of distress. I appreciate that people will, can and do say all sorts of things, but I am concerned that that distress will be that much more aggravated, and a toxic atmosphere created, if people can too loosely start saying, “I’m going to call the police on you”, when somebody subjectively interprets behaviour as insulting.
It is reasonable for us to raise this in Committee. Instead of saying that he disagrees with us on principle, is the Minister prepared to look at what the Constitution Committee has said, and what is being reflected on here, to see whether, in order to keep to his principle, the wording of criminal law can be tightly drawn so that we do not criminalise ordinary people in distress who say things that somebody might subjectively see as insulting? That is dangerous, illiberal, potentially threatening behaviour from a Government to the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not think I am being illiberal, although I accept that the noble Baroness may have a different view on that. Later in the consideration of amendments, we will come to those of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that seek to further define some of the aspects of Clause 109. I am happy to look at the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but the judgment we have made is that these clauses should remain part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has asked that they be removed. That is a clear difference between us. I have explained why they should be included; he has explained why he believes they should not. If he wishes to take that stance on Report, we can have a discussion about that.
For ease of recall, I have just been passed a copy of a long letter about the Bill and these clauses, which I have been reminded that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on 12 November. The letter answers some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised. I do not know whether this four-page letter has been made public, but I am happy to place a copy of it in the Library for the noble Lord and anybody else to examine.
Obviously, there will be the opportunity on Report for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to again table his clause stand part notices and/or for any Member of the House, once they have had an opportunity to look at the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to table amendments to meet the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has mentioned. We support these clauses, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will reflect on that and not seek to remove them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to this debate. I spent 32 years as a police officer and an emergency worker, and I am still not persuaded by these clauses. As I established in my opening speech, all scenarios for criminalising racially or religiously aggravated abuse of emergency workers are already covered by the criminal law, and this is mere repetition. There exists a raft of legislation which permits the prosecution of a person who commits such conduct. The Sentencing Code already provides for any offence to be aggravated by racial or religious hostility. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creates a specific criminal offence for using racially or religiously hostile language. The Public Order Act 1986 also contains such provisions. It is absolutely not correct to claim that emergency workers need further protection under the law when it comes to abusive language.
The Bill therefore creates duplicate offences with different thresholds and different maximum penalties, all while leaving the existing offences untouched. How is this meant to improve enforcement? How are police officers supposed to choose which offence fits which circumstance? The Government have not offered an answer, I am afraid. By creating new stand-alone offences that replicate existing ones, the Government risk producing confusion rather than clarity. Police officers, paramedics and other emergency workers deserve a legal framework that is simple, enforceable and unambiguous.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have said this already in my responses to the noble Lord in Committee, but I think it is important that I comment on what I said in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to re-emphasises the point. The offences under the Public Order Act 1986 have been interpreted by the law over the years, but, essentially, they do not relate to private dwellings. The clauses in the Bill are about private dwellings and give greater clarification. That is the point I put to the noble Lord. In the four-page letter to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which I will happily put in the Library, that is one of the key points that I make, as I have in this debate. I re-emphasise that in response to the noble Lord’s closing remarks.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful for that. Perhaps it would be easier to amend the original law on this, rather than introduce it in these clauses.
As I said, police officers, paramedics and other emergency workers deserve a legal framework that is simple, enforceable and unambiguous, and what is before us is none of those things. Given the poor defence offered by the Government, I think this may be an issue that we have to return to on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—(a) A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person (“B”),(b) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards B that is controlling or coercive,(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will or may have a serious effect on B.(2) A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or(b) it causes B psychological harm which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) A “ought to know” that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know.(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for A to show that—(a) in engaging in the behaviour in question, A believed that he or she was acting in B’s best interests, and(b) the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable.(5) A is to be taken to have shown the facts mentioned in subsection (4) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the facts is adduced to raise an issue with respect to them, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(6) The defence in subsection (4) is not available to A in relation to behaviour that causes B to fear that violence will be used against B.(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour by providing psychotherapy or counselling services.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is in exactly the same form as that which I, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my friend Lady Jolly, who is now retired, moved to the Domestic Abuse Bill in 2021. The aim of the amendment, which would introduce a new clause after Clause 109, is to criminalise controlling or coercive behaviour by so-called psychotherapists or counsellors who are in fact no better than charlatans or quacks who prey on their clients, generally young people, taking appalling advantage of their vulnerabilities, abusing their misplaced trust, and often charging them substantial fees in the process.
I should make it clear that this amendment does not imply any criticism of the many honest, altruistic and understanding psychotherapists and counsellors who daily help patients and clients up and down the country with advice and therapy. Such honest psycho- therapists offer counselling and help to their clients or patients and generally assist them through very difficult times in their lives.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the wording and effect of Amendment 347, which I co-signed, are self-explanatory, but, if the amendment needed any further elaboration, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has just provided it. I cannot improve on what he said, but now is the moment when Parliament must, after several earlier attempts by the noble Lord and me to legislate, outlaw the quack counsellors who predate on vulnerable people through controlling or coercive behaviour in order to provide some sort of protection to their victims or intended victims.
I have been concerned about these quacks and tried without success to get previous Governments to legislate for some years. More than 10 years ago, I started work with Sir Oliver Letwin, then the Cabinet Office Minister in the Government of our noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and Tom Sackville, a former Home Office Minister, as well as parliamentary counsel and Ministry of Justice officials, with the support and encouragement of my noble friend Lord Cameron, the then Prime Minister, who had a constituency interest in the matter. I spoke about those quacks on Report on the Modern Slavery Bill in November 2014 and the Serious Crime Bill in February 2015 in the other place, in your Lordships’ House on 2 March 2020 in the debate on the unregulated treatment of mental health, and then again on 2 February 2021, with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on the Domestic Abuse Bill. Now, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we have another opportunity to make real progress rather than having a general discussion without resolution.
We have laws to protect children and those under a mental incapacity through intellectual impairment, disability or the effects of old age. We can prosecute those who dishonestly take old and frail people’s money, but we leave unprotected adults who may succumb to pressure exerted on them by others with malevolent intent, because their exploitative activities currently do not come within the criminal law.
For over a decade, I have had in mind the young adult women whose experiences were brought to my attention by their parents and families. In essence, they had been brainwashed or suborned by quack counsellors. They persuaded these young people to break off all contact with their families, infected them with false memories and got them to pay fees for the so-called counselling. Some of those young women were well off and suggestible, but all of them, for no apparent reason, broke off all contact with their families.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, I successfully acted in a libel action for Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Mail, who had exposed the activities of the Unification Church, commonly known as the Moonies, in brainwashing young adults and breaking up families for nefarious financial, political and bogus religious reasons. What the quacks I have in mind are doing is hideously reminiscent of the Moonies’ activities exposed by the Daily Mail over 45 years ago.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has just reminded us, France, Belgium and Luxembourg have laws to criminalise the behaviour of predatory charlatans who exploit others in a state of emotional or psychological weakness for financial or other gain. As he also reminded us, other countries require genuine counsellors to be registered as counsellors. It must be assumed that their laws do not conflict with the articles of the ECHR that protect the right to private life and family life, the right to freedom of expression and association and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
To take the French example, in that jurisdiction it is an offence punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines to abuse the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or of a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, sickness or infirmity due to a psychological or physical disability or to pregnancy is apparent or known to the offender. It is also an offence to abuse a person in a state of physical or psychological dependency resulting from serious or repeated pressure, or from techniques used to affect his judgment in order to induce the minor or other person to act, or to abstain from acting, in a way seriously harmful to him—for “him”, also read “her”.
This amendment is clearly different but just as useful. One way of considering whether the proposed offence and defence in Amendment 347 would work is to ask oneself the following questions. Would the offence be prosecutable in theory and in practice? Could each of the elements of the offence be proved in a real-life example? Would the measure deal with the mischief that was identified, and would it catch no one else? I suggest that the answer to those questions is yes. How would it affect partners, husbands, wives, teachers, gurus, salesmen, priests and employers, all of whom are likely to have power and influence? It need not do so. Would it allow the mentally capable who want to give away their fortunes and leave their families to do so? Of course it would. Would it make sufficiently clear what was criminal behaviour and what was not? Would it comply with the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes, I suggest it would. What effect would it have on religious freedom or freedom of expression or association? In my view, it would have none. Is the proposed defence just and workable? Yes, it is. It would place the burden of disproving the defence on the prosecution.
The victims of these bogus therapists have been waiting far too long for Parliament to help them. The amendment, I suggest, is humane and practical and has nothing whatever to do with party politics or, as I have recently been asked, anything to do with youngsters or their parents caught in the maelstrom of the current transsexual controversies. If the laws of France, Belgium and Luxembourg can protect the people this amendment seeks to protect, the law of England can and ought to do so as well. We have, if I may say so, had enough of sophistry and feeble opposition based on a lack of courage, decency and drafting niceties. Too often we have heard it is the wrong day, it is the wrong Bill, this is the wrong way to approach this particular problem. Amendment 347 or something like it should be added to the Bill and I urge the Government to do that. If the Government will not do that, we must return to this on Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to express my sympathy with the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I hope my noble friend will be able to respond sympathetically but will also open the door to a discussion with his Health ministerial colleagues, because I believe that hand in hand with the amendment put forward today goes the need for statutory regulation of the psychotherapy profession. At the moment, anyone can put psychotherapy behind their name or on a label, and there is no protection whatever.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, referred to the years in which he had been involved in this. I am afraid I go back to 2001, when as a Health Minister I responded to an amendment to yet another NHS reorganisation Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, proposed statutory regulation for psychotherapists and we as a government agreed with the principle. What then happened was that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, led work attempting to get agreement within the profession to statutory regulation. It fell down essentially because there were so many different schools of thought within the psychotherapy profession itself that it was impossible to get agreement. Sadly, it essentially died the death.
We debated this amendment in the legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned, but previously he had a debate in which the regulation of the profession was raised. At that point, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, the then Health Minister, said:
“The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in … health and care … Where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to the health and well-being of patients, legal avenues will and must be explored … However, more rules are not always the answer to every problem. While statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where significant risks to users of services cannot be mitigated … it is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users”.—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 480.]
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, were pretty convincing on why you need statutory regulation alongside the amendment to this Bill. One of the problems is a lack of hard research in this area. In 2017—it goes back some years—the Brighton Therapy Partnership commented:
“There is very little research into the harm that properly executed therapy can cause. This is an unusual anomaly for a medical field, as in every other area research is abundant into both efficacy and failure of all treatment options”.
Little research has been done in this area, but anecdotally we know that many thousands of people, particularly young people and their families, have been hugely damaged by the quack therapists the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to. I hope that, alongside this amendment, my noble friend will agree to a discussion with Health Ministers to look at statutory regulation, which I believe goes side by side with the proposals being made tonight.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I have not taken part in this Bill before, but I do so now because I have been closely connected with someone who was treated by a so-called psychotherapist and removed from her family as a result. These people do something almost inconceivable. They get inside people’s minds and teach them totally false memories, so they begin to imagine that their parents have abused them and behaved in appalling ways which are entirely untrue. They believe it and as long as they go on with the so-called therapy, they are imprisoned by these wicked people.
This is done for two reasons: money and control. I very much agree with what has just been said, but I do not wish that to be yet another excuse for not accepting this amendment. There are far too many people in this country being destroyed for money and power by wicked people, and our law does not protect them. We have now discussed this so often, so long and so convincingly that frankly, I want to beg the Minister: please do not be another Minister who finds a reason for not doing this. Because if so, he allows yet more young people to have their lives destroyed by some of the most evil people I have ever come across.
I think my contribution was worth while, not just because I have personal and direct connection with someone who was in this condition, but because I want to assure the House that there is no need to worry on a religious ground. I think I am known to have very strong religious views, and I do not think this is going to cause problems for any legitimate religious organisation. There may be some problems from some pretty illegitimate religious organisations such as the Moonies and the Scientologists, but the truth is these people work on their own. They are individuals and they do this for money. I beg the Minister not to let this chance go to protect the most vulnerable young people.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the other speakers have established that there is a very real mischief here. My concern is about the width of this amendment. If it is going to be brought back on Report, either by the Minister or by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, it really needs to be more specific. It is very broad in the concepts it uses, such as the concept of “psychological harm” and whether
“the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable”.
It seems to me that the mischief here is people who provide psychotherapy or counselling services in bad faith or dishonestly, and we need to have an amendment which more specifically addresses that mischief. The French legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred was much more specific and tailored than what we have here.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have inspired me to speak. I support the amendment and would add another set of people who do exactly the same: spiritual faith healers. They do coercive and controlling behaviour and target the most vulnerable. They do all the things mentioned. In certain minority ethnic communities, they will target vulnerable women, for example, and take large amounts of cash from them. I do not expect noble Lords to amend this proposed new clause to add those sets of people, because they obviously want to maximise their chances of getting their clause through, but they have inspired me to think about replicating their amendment and perhaps proposing it for future legislation. So the Minister can expect a letter from me to discuss this further—which also amounts to spiritual abuse.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for tabling this considered amendment. Controlling or coercive behaviour is currently legislated against if the offender is or has been
“in an intimate or family relationship”
with the victim. This amendment uses the framework of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 and applies it to offenders providing psychotherapeutic or counselling services.
I understand the reasoning behind the noble Lord’s amendment. The original offence is in place because being in an intimate or familial relationship puts both parties in a unique position of proximity. These positions of trust carry a heightened risk of becoming exploitative, and thus legislation exists to recognize this. Psychotherapy and counselling services carry a similar risk; they put patients in extremely open and often vulnerable positions as they entrust the provider with their confidence. Controlling or coercive behaviour becomes more likely given the power dynamics in these relationships and I see no reason why, in principle, the law should not extend past protecting familial or intimate relationships to encompass certain intimate services.
This conclusion is backed up by recent research into mental health services. Earlier this year, the University of Hertfordshire found more than 750 incidents of violence and coercion by staff. These include instances of verbal abuse, intentional neglect and even cases of physical violence. I do not intend to extrapolate from that study and make it seem as if it represents the entirety of our mental health services—I hope it does not. This is an under-investigated area and we do not yet know the scale of neglect in our services, but the most serious conclusion that can be drawn from it is the fact that, of these 750 offences, only four official complaints were made and, of those four complaints, a single one was upheld. Whether the reason for that was ignorance of reporting mechanisms, intimidation by staff or the inexistence of the legal means, it represents a failure of the system.
The least we should do as legislators is promise to further examine the reasons behind those failings: something I hope the Minister can assure us the Government will do. If the Government conclude there is a gap in the law, and that vulnerable people attending psychotherapy or counselling services are being controlled or coerced without the legal means to get justice, I hope that they will consider the amendment in question.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for returning to this issue. I give him credit for his persistence. I welcome the support for these measures from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for sharing his personal experiences and to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for reminding us that this issue was raised even back as far as 2001. I am also grateful for my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark making a guest appearance in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marks; it is always helpful to see that, as I am speaking for the Government on this occasion. I am also grateful for the constructive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, with regard to these issues.
Amendment 347, as we are clear, seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients, by replicating the coercive or controlling behaviour offence under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has previously shared concerns—he has repeated them today—about unscrupulous therapists taking advantage of their clients’ vulnerabilities by supplanting parents and families in the affections and minds of their clients, for the purposes of turning them against their friends and family through the process called transference. I entirely agree with him that this is a serious issue that deserves careful consideration. Again, I reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in that regard. However, the question for the Committee is whether there is an argument to legislate at this time or whether there are other means to examine the outcomes that the noble Lord seeks. I suggest that for the moment that, for reasons I will explain, legislation would not necessarily be the way forward in this case.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to criticise the Minister’s intentions and motives, but what he has just said is reminiscent of what I have heard on previous occasions from Ministers of my party and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, probably heard from Ministers in the Tony Blair Government back in 2001. We need to ratchet up the urgency here. Having further reviews is really a delightful departmental way of saying, “Not today, thanks, and possibly not even tomorrow”. We need to grip this. Calls for evidence are fine, so long as they are not calls for further delay or a “can’t be bothered” attitude. I know from my own knowledge of the Minister that he does not belong to the “can’t be bothered” department. If my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others who agree with him on this amendment are to be persuaded that we are not just being brushed off then we need to see some real action. That could mean the Minister, or a Health Minister, agreeing to meet with us, with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who has some views about the drafting, and with other Members of this House to have a very serious round-table discussion early in the new year. Otherwise, this will dribble away as it did under the previous Government, and I know that the Minister does not want that to happen.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, there is a case to be made that if, on several occasions, members of the Conservative Party have used the same argument in government, my noble friends in the Labour Party have used the same argument in previous Governments, and I myself use the same argument, then maybe that same argument has some validity. I put that to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. I have tried to tell the Committee that the Department of Health and Social Care is taking forward a programme of reform to professional regulation and legislative frameworks for healthcare professionals. Responsibility for that lies with the Department of Health. On this Bill, I speak in response to the amendments on behalf of the Home Office. I am arguing, and I have done so previously, that legislation would not be the appropriate route forward. There may be a common thread with previous Ministers there, but that is the argument that I am putting to the Committee.
I am happy to reflect with colleague as to whether I can ask my colleague Ministers to examine the issues that the noble and learned Lord has put to the Committee, but it is ultimately for them to consider the evidence provided. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, thinks that that is a brush-off. I hope it is not, but he can judge that in reflecting on what I have said today. If he wishes to then there is the opportunity to raise this issue on Report; the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has already shown his tenacity in doing so on several occasions.
I am happy to try to facilitate for a Minister of Health to examine the issues put before the Committee, and I think it is reasonable that I draw this debate to the attention of the appropriate Minister for Health, including the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which test the assumptions of the proposed new clause as well. Ultimately, however, I am standing here on behalf of the Government and the Home Office, and speaking for all these matters now. The legislative route is not one that we consider appropriate. I have said what I have said, and I would be very happy, if the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment, to draw the attention of the appropriate Health Minister to this debate, including the noble Lord’s comments and those of other Members. I have heard the request for a meeting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and I will draw that request to the attention of the appropriate Health Minister. If Members remain unhappy after that process then there are a number of options open to them; they are experienced parliamentarians and no doubt they will exercise them.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken movingly and persuasively in favour of our amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for giving the added suggestion in relation to spiritual abuse. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for the support for our amendment from the Opposition Benches. I am bound to say that I am disappointed by the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, on behalf of the Government, for a number of reasons.
First, I have the greatest respect for the way that the noble Lord has handled matters in this House since becoming a Minister, but I have never heard him make a brush-off or an excuse quite as specious as the one that he just made, when he said that the fact that the same excuse made by him had been made by the Conservative Government gave it validity. It does not. There is no validity to such an excuse and, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, the excuses really do have to stop now, because we raise a very real issue.
Secondly, I will consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whom I count as a friend as well as a very wise lawyer. If he has doubts about the drafting then those are something we will discuss, and no doubt can discuss with the Government. I also agree with the points made by those noble Lords who said that regulation is desperately needed for psycho- therapists and therapists. Of course it is, but the fact that we need regulation does not mean that we do not also need the help of the criminal law for those who are unscrupulous enough to use quack psychotherapy and false counselling to dupe people into parting with money and ruining their lives in the process. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he will get the Department of Health involved. We heard that from the Conservative Government, and it is not enough. This is a Crime and Policing Bill that introduces new offences: the protection of victims and vulnerable people, and the visiting of penalties upon unscrupulous and criminal behaviour, is what the criminal law is and ought to be about. The time has come to deal with it.
We have heard about the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to regulation. He has worked on that for many years. He wanted to be here this evening, but I am afraid that he was stuck in traffic in south Oxfordshire—something that happens to many of us, even in south Oxfordshire. The noble Lord has also supported the proposition that this behaviour ought to be criminal, and he supports it now. I suggest that the Government need to take that very seriously indeed.
I do not accept that the wording of the offence is so broad that it does not penalise the correct behaviour. The way that it is phrased in subsection 1(a) is that A commits an offence if
“A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person”.
The point taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—that there may be other people who need regulating—does not count. The number of counsellors that he described would all be caught by this.
This should not now be the subject for an excuse. It is a time for action. We need to legislate now. I would like to meet the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and anybody else who is interested. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who has also co-signed this amendment, for which I am very grateful, has worked on this for years and so has the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. If we can have a meeting, work out between now and Report how to get the drafting right, and produce a criminal offence that will work and will outlaw this behaviour then that is something that I would very much like to do, and I will have achieved the end that I seek. I invite the Minister—indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, put it, I beg him—to take this seriously and end this scourge once and for all with this Crime and Policing Bill. With that said, and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will come back to it on Report.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
“Duty to prevent illegal violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from illegal violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) illegal psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and illegal harassment, including online illegal harassment;(vi) threats of illegal violence.”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of illegal violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.”.”
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 348 and 349, in my name. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Hendy, for adding their names. These amendments seek to tackle one of the most pressing issues in our society, gender-based violence and harassment, with a clear focus on workplaces. As I open this debate, I look forward to hearing contributions from across the Committee on how we can strengthen protections for workers and make our workplaces truly safe.
Amendments 348 and 349 would establish a health and safety framework to address violence against women and girls in the workplace and create a new duty on employers to prevent violence and harassment by amending Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This is not the first time I have brought this proposal before noble Lords. During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we had a constructive debate on the proposal. Since then, support has grown both inside and outside Parliament. Just last month, the End Not Defend campaign held an event here in Parliament attended by Peers and Members of the other place. Survivors shared harrowing experiences of how the law is failing them. Trade unions, specialist organisations and survivors themselves are calling for action. Their courage in sharing their experiences demands a response from us.
This Bill already introduces a new offence to protect retail workers. It is a welcome step, but why stop there? Violence and harassment affect workers across all sectors. If we are serious about halving violence against women and girls within the next decade, as His Majesty’s Government have pledged, we need a cross-departmental approach that moves beyond a sole focus on criminalisation to prevention and tackling the root causes. Leveraging health and safety law is one way to achieve this. It would make VAWG prevention everybody’s business. These amendments were co-written with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women—organisations with decades of experience in supporting victims. The amendments’ aims are also supported by several workers unions.
Current legislation falls short. The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 introduced a preventive duty on sexual harassment, but in practice enforcement occurs only after harm has happened. The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen this requirement when it introduces protections around third-party harassment. However, enforcement can occur only after sexual harassment has been experienced, limiting its preventive function. It also excludes other forms of violence against women and girls in the workplace, such as other forms of harassment and all forms of violence, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse.
The UK ratified ILO Convention No. 190, which requires a gender-responsive approach to workplace safety, yet our laws do not reflect this obligation. Recent cases show the urgency of this, including the tragic murder of Gracie Spinks by a colleague who stalked her, despite repeated reports. Female NHS surgeons report harassment and even rape in operating theatres, described as “surgery’s open secret”. Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck took her own life after relentless harassment by her superior. There have been reports of sexual assault and rape at Harrods, the CBI, the BBC and McDonald’s.
The Harrods case was not a failure of individual courage; it was a failure of structural responsibility. Multiple institutions had sight of risk, but none had a duty to prevent it. Harrods looked like a modern employer, but it functioned as a closed environment in which power went unchecked and young women were left unprotected. These amendments would have required the risk assessments that never happened. Survivors of al-Fayed’s abuse, represented by no one above, say the same thing again and again: no one stopped him. Legislators must ensure that no workplace in the UK can ever operate with that level of impunity again. Where accountability is optional, exploitation becomes operational. The Harrods redress scheme shows exactly why voluntary arrangements cannot substitute for enforceable duties on employers.
These are not isolated incidents. Rights of Women reports that 56% of calls to its advice line involve harassment or violence from colleagues. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust found that women are eight times more likely than men to experience sexual misconduct at work, yet there is no government data collection, no reporting requirement, and outdated attitudes persist that VAWG is a private matter.
I would like to illustrate the lack of regulation for VAWG in the workplace and why these amendments are necessary. The Equality Act addresses sexual harassment as discrimination but excludes other forms of VAWG, leaving significant safety issues unregulated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers can adopt domestic abuse policies voluntarily, as recommended by the EHRC in guidance to employers on domestic abuse—although the Welsh version is actually over a decade old. However, much of the currently available guidance assumes domestic abuse occurs outside the workplace and outside the remit of the employer’s liability. This does not align with the statutory guidance to employers in the Domestic Abuse Act, which states that employers should consider the impact of domestic abuse on their employees as part of their duty of care under health and safety law, as regulated by the Health and Safety Executive.
Despite the growing evidence that gender-based violence and harassment harm workers’ health and safety, the Health and Safety Executive does not recognise gender-based violence as a workplace hazard. In its evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee 2018 inquiry on sexual harassment, the Health and Safety Executive stated clearly that it has a policy of not applying the Health and Safety at Work Act when it deems that other agencies or regulators have more specific responsibilities. The Health and Safety Executive is currently advising workers to report harassment to bodies that lack enforcement powers. This must change, and harassment and violence in the workplace should be recognised as a health and safety at work matter.
Health and safety frameworks provide a structured, enforceable approach. Updating them to include VAWG would ensure employers have a positive duty to prevent harm, not just to respond after an incident. As with existing health and safety duties, this would be proportionate. These amendments are practical and scalable. They would require risk assessment, clear policies, training, and confidential reporting mechanisms—all proportionate to the size and risk profile of the workplace and consistent with the existing health and safety frameworks.
Amendments 348 and 349 prioritise prevention and victim protection. They reflect expert advice and growing public demand. They align with the Government’s own commitment to halving violence against women and girls within the next decade. Tomorrow, the VAWG strategy will be published. The Safeguarding Minister in the other place said on Monday that
“the strategy has to be for everybody … It has to be for employers as well. It is for businesses, charities—everybody in society”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/25; col. 651.]
I hope that these amendments are viewed as one way to make that vision a reality.
We know what happens when accountability is optional. We have seen it in shops, in hospitals, in the Armed Forces, and we owe it to those who have spoken up and to those who still feel unable to, to act. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope His Majesty’s Government will consider these arguments as the Crime and Policing Bill progresses through this House. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy once again to add my name to these two amendments from the noble Baroness, because we had a very similar debate on 21 May during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. On 11 July, the noble Baroness followed up with a letter to the then Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—laying out the case very clearly.
The Government have the laudable intention of trying to reduce violence against women and girls by 50%, but there is a strange incongruence in respect of that ambition. I wonder if noble Lords are aware of how much time people, if they are fortunate enough to be employed, spend in the workplace during an average year? It is 52% of the year. In a year, more than half of an average employee’s time is spent in and around the workplace. Therefore, when one is putting together a comprehensive strategy to try and reduce violence against women and girls, excluding the workplace from close scrutiny and oversight seems somewhat of an oversight. What the noble Baroness is suggesting in these two amendments therefore seems eminently sensible. Without looking at this very carefully and ensuring that it is effectively included within the strategy in some way, shape or form, the strategy will be fundamentally flawed from the start.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which is often cited by Governments of whatever persuasion as being the bedrock of trying to ensure rights in the workplace, is now exactly 51 years old. I am sure the Government will wheel out, as they have on previous occasions, the many other Acts and regulations that have been put on the statute book at various points over the past 51 years. However, during the last 51 years, for better or worse—I think for worse—the situation in the workplace, for women and girls in particular but also for men, has fundamentally changed, and the regulations and legislation have not kept up. There is clearly an imbalance.
One need only look at the range of organisations that have suffered quite a lot of reputational damage as a result of not trying to put in place regulations and rules and of not instilling, primarily through leadership, a culture to ensure that the sort of behaviour that we are talking about and trying to stop is called out. I could go through an exhaustive list, but we can look at the embarrassment that various police forces have had to endure in the last few years. We can also look at the embarrassment that the Church of England has had to face and is still facing; that is an institution that not only finds it extraordinarily difficult to acknowledge the existence of that sort of behaviour within its ranks but has the strange anomaly that it is an organisation part of whose purpose in life is to forgive. However, it is not enough to forgive things going wrong if you are not prioritising the needs of those who are being wronged, and that is unfortunately the case in the Church of England and, of course, in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world, as is very well known.
The military is also an embarrassing example. To have lost a First Sea Lord through impropriety at work is not exactly an example of stellar leadership. It makes one wonder how it was possible for an individual to reach that level of rank—with fundamental and comprehensive reviews and training taking place, in theory, right the way through their career—and to arrive at the pinnacle of their military profession only then to be publicly found very wanting. Clearly, there was something fundamentally wrong with the culture there. We have also had Cabinet Ministers who have had to resign on the basis of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, particularly harassment and bullying. This is a problem that is endemic; to ignore it is simply not acceptable.
I hope and expect that the Minister’s reply will not be a carbon copy of the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, gave in the debate on the 21 May. That answer was, in effect, a list of all the various regulations and legislation that, in theory, are meant to enable one to address and stop this, but which clearly are not working. To try and defend it, when clearly it is not working, makes one feel that the Minister, if he does do that, is unfortunately taking King Canute as a role model. It is simply not acceptable.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and to support the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, not least because my noble friend Lord Hendy—who is, sadly, not able to be in the country this evening—co-signed her amendment.
If anyone imagines or suggests that the job of the Health and Safety Executive should be limited to the inspection of heavy machinery or physical infrastructure, as opposed to social infrastructure, then they are not just living in the last century but arguably the one before that. For the Health and Safety Executive to look at its role in such a limited way is also incredibly gendered.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the intention of these amendments, because they sit so comfortably with other measures that the Government are attempting. The noble Baroness put it very well when she said that this is essential for the credible functioning of the violence against women and girls strategy. Last night, during the course of the Second Reading debate on the Victims and Courts Bill, it was wonderful to hear another Minister, my noble friend Lady Levitt, talk about further work and an expanded regime on allowing whistleblowing and the busting open of non-disclosure agreements that cover up illegal activity—which often means violence against women at work. What the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is proposing sits so comfortably with that.
I cannot believe that my noble friend the Minister will think anything different not least because, just a few minutes ago, he spoke so passionately about protecting emergency workers when they have to go into difficult and dangerous settings and how they should be protected even from abuse, let alone from violence and more serious criminality. It would be odd if there was no duty on the employers of emergency workers to look at risk, adequate training and culture in the workplace and at what measures might be taken within teams and with training for those same emergency workers. As was suggested by the noble Baroness, this is about joined-up thinking and coming up with a violence against women and girls strategy that the whole Committee and all parties can get behind. I am feeling optimistic about my noble friend the Minister’s reply.
To Committee colleagues on the opposition Front Bench, I would say that there are inevitable concerns about any additional burden on employers. I am seeing nods that suggest that my suspicions are correct. But these duties can be as appropriate. If noble Lords and Committee members have concerns about the precise drafting of the amendments, those can be dealt with before Report. The duties would be to prepare and revise assessments that are appropriate for a particular business—and businesses and workplace settings are so different; they include very vulnerable and secluded settings, with visits and travel, including to people’s homes. This only need be about strategies and training as appropriate; the duties need not be an undue burden on good employers of good faith who have many women workers in particular, although I would like to see all protected.
I hope that the entire Committee can get behind the noble Baroness. I am delighted to see the first ever woman general secretary of the TUC looking as if she might be due to speak after me.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I first seek clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, on his sums. I do not do sums either but, if I heard him correctly, he said that a worker spends 50% of his life at work. If that is what I heard correctly, that is 84 hours a week.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
What I said was that a person fortunate enough to be employed spends on average 52% of one year in and around the workplace.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I shall need to go back later and do my own sums, but that still seems to me a little bit excessive.
I am not opposed to the proposed new clauses, and I agree with the thrust of them; this is an important issue. But my concern is with turning a broad legal duty, which these two proposed clauses suggest, into concrete and repeatable workplace practice. There are some practical difficulties. First, you get hidden and underreported incidents. We all know that victims often do not report harassment or stalking—and then there are no incident logs, which may underrate the risk. The risk can come from colleagues, managers, contractors, clients, customers or the public, including online, making responsibility and control much harder to map. That might put a simply impossible obligation on employers and impose a very heavy burden on small employers, which would probably not have an HR or personnel department or the security expertise to assess all the potential risk.
Designing “gender-responsive” measures into practical and proportionate steps seems to me to be a very difficult thing to do; a lot of careful tailoring would be required to deal with different people and roles. That may be beyond the capability of many employers, particularly small ones. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has looked at the HSE advice, already published, which I think includes detailed guidance on managing work-related stress and preventing work-related violence. That includes information on creating policies to address unacceptable behaviour. Perhaps the voluntary advice it gives could be expanded to deal with the elements at the core of these new clauses.
I also look to what ACAS does. This is what it says on its website:
“‘Vicarious liability’ is when an employer could be held responsible if one of their workers discriminates against someone … The law (Equality Act 2010) says a worker and an employer could both be held responsible if the discrimination happens ‘in the course of employment’. This means something that’s linked to work … This could be at work or outside the workplace, for example at a work party or through social media that’s linked to work”.
That is what ACAS says about discrimination, but I simply wonder whether the better course of action might be not to pass this proposed new clause into law but to get HSE and ACAS to take the thrust of the suggestions and design new guidance that delivers what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, want.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, has just left the Chamber, but when I saw him here, I assumed that he was going to speak on this matter. Had he spoken, he would probably have said, “Please do not give any more powers to the Health and Safety Executive”. He was a victim of one of the excessive criminal trials. When he was commissioner of the Met, one of his officers was pursuing a burglar. The burglar ran on to the roof of a factory, and the police officer chased him, fell through the skylight and was seriously injured. The Health and Safety Executive took the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to court for failing to provide a safe working environment for the officer. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said: “I stood in No. 1 court of the Old Bailey—the court that had the trials of murderers, serious criminals and traitors—accused by the Health and Safety Executive of not taking enough care of my workers. When my lawyer asked the chap from the Health and Safety Executive, ‘What should the officer have done?’, he said, ‘Well, he should have stopped; he should have sent for a cherry-picker and scaffolding to make sure it was safe’”. The noble Lord said, “I looked at the jury, and the jury looked at the face of this idiot, and within minutes I was cleared, because a sensible jury knew that that was a ridiculous thing to say”.
That is the only danger of giving these powers to an organisation like the Health and Safety Executive. It may use the bulk of them safely most of the time, but on occasions you will get silly decisions. I should say in conclusion that that case of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, is a very good reason why we should keep juries, rather than having a single judge.
I perceive difficulties in putting this proposal into law, but I hope that a solution can be found whereby the Health and Safety Executive, ACAS or others can pursue the contents of new clauses without recourse to legislation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have some serious reservations about Amendment 348 and the related Amendment 349. I spoke at length against them when a similar amendment was tabled to the Employment Rights Bill, and I shall not repeat everything that I said then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked about looking at the drafting. That was interesting, because one of my problems is with the wording of this repeated amendment. It is all over the place, quite dangerous and very broad, and it could get us into all sorts of unintended trouble. Let me illustrate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, spoke passionately and excellently about some the real live problems of sexual harassment at work, and many of us will recognise that. As I say, I have concerns about the language of this amendment. It refers to having a legal mandate for employers to introduce
“proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from … psychological and emotional abuse”.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that “psychological and emotional abuse” is a very broad term. The nature of “proactive and preventative measures” might involve stopping something that is very hard to define and could result in real overreach. It could be quite coercive and manipulative.
However, I am particularly nervous about the use of the “gender-responsive” approach that is advocated, particularly in relation to training. We are told in the amendment that
“a ‘gender-responsive approach’ means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls”.
Women and girls are not a subset of “gender identities”—whatever they are. That is insulting, and gender identities are at the very least contentious. This language confusion, for me, drags the amendment into a potential political minefield. I am familiar with the way in which gender-responsive approaches are being used in the workplace at the present time to undermine women and girls.
I was fortunate enough today to have a meeting here in Parliament with the Darlington Nurses Union. The Darlington nurses are in dispute with their NHS employer because they felt sexually unsafe in their single-sex nurses’ changing room—which, by the way, was fought for as part of health and safety at work in the past. They had a place where they could get changed and they felt unsafe when a gender-inclusive policy allowed a male who identifies as a woman to use their space. This has led to all sorts of problems in relation to what safety at work is. They felt as though there was a degree of sexual harassment going on, and so forth. I am just pointing out that this is a difficult area, so can we at least acknowledge it?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is repeating, to some extent, some of the perfectly sensible points that she made in the debate earlier in the year. I just point out that, in Committee, these are probing amendments: no more, no less. It is accepted from the get-go that they could be improved, and what I think would be helpful for the Committee is not a long list of the things that are wrong with the amendment—we accept that there may be some things that are wrong with it—but some suggestions, if the noble Baroness is unhappy with the wording, as to what might be put in its place if, as I think is the case, she acknowledges that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
That is a fair comment. The point that I was going on to make was that she was suspended for misgendering using a gender-inclusive policy similar to that advocated in this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I suggested then that I was not happy with the wording of an amendment, and it has simply been repeated. I made a speech that I thought was reasonable at the time. This is actually not the same speech, but I am raising some of the issues. I ask, as I asked earlier, why would we use that approach to protecting women and girls when women in the workplace are at present actually the victims of some of these gender-related policies? Therefore, if the amendment comes back as a more straightforward, narrowly defined amendment about sexual harassment at work, I would be much more interested in hearing about it. It is the amendment that is repeated, not just my speech. It is exactly the same wording that I objected to before. No account has been taken of any of the criticisms made in Committee, at the probing stage, so I think I can reasonably say that I would like us all to not repeat ourselves, including with this amendment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I want to come back really briefly on the language of “gender-responsive approach”. That is not a “gender-inclusive approach”: it is based on the ILO convention that our Government ratified, along with the rest of the global community, and relates to the fact that more women than men face misconduct at work. I wanted to clarify the language there, but I do take those points.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support for these probing amendments and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her work on this issue. I strongly welcome the Government’s promise to launch the largest crackdown in history to reduce violence against women and girls. While of course the misery of experiencing violence and harassment is not exclusive to women, surveys from the TUC and others have shown that it is overwhelmingly women who suffer this abuse. I also welcome the Government’s recognition that we need a whole-system approach that places prevention and survivors at its heart. As we have heard already, every part of society has to step up if we are to achieve the goal of every woman feeling safe everywhere, and that must include action to make the workplace a place of safety for women, too.
I had hoped that we had moved on from the notion that violence against women is somehow a private or domestic matter, but let us take the practical example of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations. This is the UK’s health and safety law that requires employers to report specific serious work-related incidents, such as fatalities and major injuries, to the Health and Safety Executive. These reports help the HSE track risks and prevent future harm, making it a vital legal duty to maintain workplace safety and accountability. But, if you look at it today, you see that the HSE website explicitly states that, while acts of violence to a person at work that result in death or a major injury are reportable, a physical injury inflicted on one employee by another during a dispute about a so-called “personal matter”, or an employee at work
“being injured by a relative or a friend who visits them at work about a domestic matter”
is not reportable. So, the HSE has no responsibility to track violence against women that happens in the workplace which is deemed to be a personal or domestic matter. I find that pretty shocking. You have to question why women’s experience of violence at work is disregarded in this way.
As we have also heard, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has responsibility for the duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, but it is open and public that it will investigate only what it describes as “strategic cases”, as it simply does not have adequate resources to deliver comprehensive enforcement. Surely, health and safety inspectors who have the powers and ability to go into workplaces have a role to play in enforcing prevention of sexual harassment.
The UK has fallen far behind the ILO’s recommended standard for the ratio of labour inspectors to the size of workforce. In effect, the safety and welfare of British workers has been deprioritised over the last decade and more compared with other countries. But it seems that the safety and welfare of women workers have been deprioritised even more. There is an opportunity for an update and a reset. The new fair work agency and boosting the number of labour inspectors will be vital, but we must get the health and safety framework right, too. For the sake of women workers, I hope the Minister will talk to other colleagues, for sure, but also give careful consideration to the amendments before us.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too support the objective of Amendment 348—who would not support the objective of preventing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace? I suspect that the main argument against Amendment 348 will be the burden that it would impose on employers, particularly small ones, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made that point very eloquently.
I will briefly identify one reason why it is very much in the interests of the employer to have these duties. It is because if there is illegal violence and harassment in the workplace which causes, as it will, damage to the victim, she—and it normally will be she—will be looking for remedies, and the person against whom she is most likely to be advised to sue is not the rogue other employee but the employer. The employer is particularly vulnerable to such a civil claim if they have not, as required by Amendment 348—which no doubt can be improved in its drafting—conducted any sort of assessment to identify potential risks, have not implemented policies and procedures to eliminate those risks, and, in particular, have not provided at least basic training to all employees on the importance of these matters. So, yes, this will impose a burden on employers, particularly small ones, but it is very much in their interests to protect themselves against legal liability and to deter such action taking place.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, these amendments ask employers not only to react when something goes wrong but to look ahead, identify the risks and take sensible steps to prevent harm before it happens. That is especially important for women and those in insecure or public-facing roles, who we know are more likely to be targeted and less likely to feel safe reporting what has happened to them.
The statistics are damning. There were nearly 700,000 incidents last year alone, with attacks on lone workers surging by 132% over three years. We strongly support the aim of these amendments; however, as we did previously, we have questions around how a duty to eliminate risks, so far as reasonably practicable, would work in small businesses on tight margins. Layering new mandates on top of existing duties under the Equality Act and employment law risks confusion, which could dilute accountability. This is not an argument against doing more, but a practical issue which needs to be addressed.
There is also a wider cultural point. Legislation can set clear expectations, but workers will be safer only if staff feel confident to report incidents and these reports lead to action, not to victims being sidelined or blamed. Training, confidential reporting routes and proper follow-up, all mentioned in the amendments, are not extras; they are essential if any new duty is to change what has sadly become everyday reality for many people just trying to do their jobs.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her thoughtful amendments, which seek to place prevention of illegal violence and harassment in the workplace on a clear statutory footing and to expand the duties of the Health and Safety Executive accordingly.
It is clear from the debate that, across your Lordships’ House, we take violence against women and girls extremely seriously, whether that violence occurs at home, on the street, online or in the workplace. We know that gender-based violence remains alarmingly prevalent. Data for the year ending March 2024 shows that 6% of women aged 16 and over experienced domestic abuse, 4% experienced sexual assault and 4% experienced stalking.
These amendments focus on violence at work, in the employment context. Sexual harassment at work is far from uncommon. A recent study by UCL found that nearly one in seven UK workers encountered workplace abuse in the past year, with women reporting significantly higher levels of harassment and assault. Those figures remind us that work must of course be a place of safety, dignity and respect for all employees.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for tabling the amendments and explaining them, and for the support given to her by my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Front Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
The Government’s concerns about the amendment do not reflect those expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Fox. They made valid points, but they are not ones I will deploy in the argument against the contributions in the debate. I am grateful also for the comments on the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the violence against women and girls strategy will be published tomorrow, as has been recognised. It is ambitious. It sets a target to reduce violence against women and girls per se over a 10-year period, and I am grateful to my noble friend for her endorsement of that approach.
I hope I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in deploying some of these arguments, because I was not party to the arguments in previous Bills, but I will explain to the Committee where the Government are coming from in relation to the points the noble Baroness made. It is important and absolutely right that we reduce violence against women and girls in the workplace, as well as in domestic or public settings. This may reflect some of the arguments that the noble Lord may have heard before, but under existing health and safety at work legislation—the 1974 Act and its related secondary legislation—employers have a clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. They are required, under the legislation from 1974— which was passed by a previous Labour Government 51 years ago but is still relevant today—to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce those risks.
The 1974 Act, along with a range of related regulations, further mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risks of workplace violence. As part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999—again, a measure from a Labour Government some 26 years ago—requires employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and take suitable action to reduce or eliminate those risks. The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, which are both responsible for enforcing the 1974 Act, implement proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers comply with their duties, which my noble friend Lady O’Grady will be aware of from her previous life experience. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate controls to protect their workforce, and anyone else affected by their work, from workplace violence. The Health and Safety Executive has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations.
I heard what my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, but Amendment 349, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, would require the HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on illegal violence and harassment in the workplace. As I have set out, employers already have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to manage such risks, including violence and aggression. Although workplace harassment could be addressed under the 1974 Act, as has been mentioned, the HSE does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation applies.
Harassment offences in the workplace are covered under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which, again, was passed by my predecessors in office. Additionally, the Equality and Human Rights Commission can act under the Equality Act 2010, which was also passed by my party’s predecessors in office. Recent amendments to the Equality Act 2010, which came into force in October 2024, require employers to take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. This provision is enforced by the EHRC. In the VAWG strategy, which will be published tomorrow—so I am not able to divulge every aspect—there are measures on stalking and on domestic violence protection orders, as well as a whole range of things, including measures in the Bill.
I therefore reassure the noble Baroness that there is a legal framework, which is both robust and comprehensive, for addressing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace. The Government remain committed to raising awareness of this issue and want to examine, as they are doing now, how to apply the violence against women and girls strategy to reduce violence against women and girls across the piece. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, because the proposals in the VAWG strategy tomorrow and the outline I have given of the performance of the Health and Safety Executive are, I hope, sufficient to show that we take this issue seriously and that the Government will not tolerate violence in the workplace.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
It is very clear, from what we have heard in this debate, that the status quo is not working, so what does the Minister propose that the Government actually do to improve this? As we have heard, the Minister has listed all these pieces of legislation, which are clearly not working because so many women still face these issues in the workplace.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that, and I hope I can give her assurance. My honourable friend Jess Phillips is the Minister directly responsible for the violence against women and girls strategy, although I obviously account to this House for it. She has a history of ensuring that we focus on the reduction of violence against women and girls. The strategy she will publish tomorrow is a strategy for across the piece; it is not just, as we have discussed today, for domestic or public violence against women and girls but a comprehensive strategy. I hope the noble Baroness will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt that she shares the view to reduce and eliminate domestic violence or violence in a workplace setting against women and girls. I speak for the Government in expressing that view.
I therefore hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and examine in detail the strategy which will be published tomorrow. I will make sure my honourable friend Jess Phillips sees the debate we have had and looks at the points made by noble Lords from across the Committee on how the Health and Safety Executive operates, particularly on the personal basis that has been discussed today.
I hope, with those reassurances, that the noble Baroness will know that this Government are committed to taking action to reduce violence against women and girls by half over a decade. The points she has raised about the workplace are valid but we believe the measures are there to ensure enforcement takes place. I am sure we can reflect with colleague Ministers on how the Health and Safety Executive operates its responsibilities to help achieve the objectives the Government have set in the VAWG strategy.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I say in response to the Minister that I welcome the publication of the VAWG strategy tomorrow and will look in detail for anything which addresses the workplace.
I turn back to this debate. These specific probing amendments have set out a clear objective and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. It is clear that the Committee agrees with the objective these amendments are trying to achieve, yet they perhaps need more work in terms of the wording.
I will respond to a few of the comments made by noble Lords. The reminder by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of just how much time individuals spend in the workplace highlights how we cannot achieve the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls within this decade by ignoring the workplace and how important it is.
In response to the point from the Conservative Front Bench on employers, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised an interesting point about how having a framework of this kind can help protect employers. That is a positive. Having more guidance, a framework and risk assessments also protects employers’ liability in the future. There were a few points raised there—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I remind the noble Baroness that, in withdrawing amendments, statements need to be brief. She does not need to summarise the debate.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I appreciate those comments. However, this is about how we will take the amendments further. This has been a really useful discussion in Committee and I value the contributions that people have made. I will not press my amendments today. However, this is not the end of this discussion. I value the comments from the Minister about how we will progress this, particularly with the wording of the amendments and by taking on board the comments raised by noble Lords in this debate. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will reflect on the debate— I am grateful that this will be shared with the Minister in the other place, Jess Phillips—and I would welcome further engagement. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.